|
Post by nabilbb on Nov 5, 2013 16:28:17 GMT -6
Can you list the names of the 12 disciples
Edit: Never mind, I found it
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Nov 6, 2013 10:36:58 GMT -6
Can you tell me a little about the Gospel of Judas and the gospel of Barnabas, I think they are part of the new testament and don't belong to any Canon right?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Nov 6, 2013 12:03:52 GMT -6
One of the reasons a canon had to be chosen is that books about Jesus and those associated with him were being written in great quantities, as Christianity spread and made more converts. Everyone associated with Jesus was of interest to the early Christians. We don't know the name of the Blessed Virgin's parents but they were given names early on (Anna and Joachim and we have kept them, even though there is no way to show that they are accurate). In any case the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Barnabas are works written much too late to be genuinely written by the Apostles or those close to them. The Gospel of Judas essentially makes him out to be a bit of a hero-- he was the only one who really understood what Christ was up to and only did what Christ told him to do. He did not betray Christ. The only surviving manuscript is in the Coptic language. Wikipedia has a good description of the book, if you want to look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) The Gospel of Barnabas is a very late book (medieval) and I know nothing about it. The Wiki description is fascinating. The was apparently edited to bring it in line with Islamic teachings and is accepted by some Muslims(how many? I don't know)as reflecting a suppressed apostolic book. I am going to have to do a little reading on this subject. If I learn anything really interesting, I will pass it on.
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Nov 6, 2013 12:20:10 GMT -6
Thanks Maggie,
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Nov 21, 2013 23:31:12 GMT -6
We need to try and make a little more progress in this thread. It may be of interest if I point out that Luke, who wrote the 4th Gospel, was not a disciple. Luke (the book) and the book that follows it in the New Testamant, Acts (of the Apostles), are considered by scholars to be one book written by the same author. They are extremely important because they (or it, if you accept that they are really one book) document the beginning years of Christianity. We learn so much from them. Even the opening lines of Luke's Gospel tell us something important:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke tells us that he is writing because there had already been so many books written about Jesus that he felt obliged to investigate everything and write a clear accurate account. Luke's Gospel is generally dated between 70 and 80 A.D. We learn in Acts that Saul/Paul had asked for permission to persecute the Christians and this culminated in the stoning of St. Stephen (For that reason he is the patron saint of stone masons and those who suffer from headaches!).
Stephen's death is the start of the first great wave of persecution and resulted in the scattering of the Christians throughout the Greco-Roman world. They are known to have gone to the Jews in the cities of the diaspora. This suggests an answer to the question of what happened to the 5 million Jews who disappear from history by the 2nd century leaving just a remnant of a million or so. It never fails to shock those who had not known this bit of history but some scholars believe that they were converted to Christianity. If that is true it means that most Jews did receive Jesus as the Messiah and it was only a smaller group that rejected him.
Ancient demography is notoriously slippery and we rarely have really reliable data for so much that we would like to know. The conversion of most Jews is just a theory and cannot be proved but I find it fascinating to think about.
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Nov 22, 2013 10:25:33 GMT -6
Thanks Maggie, I always hear people saying (Christians and non Christians) Paul is the person who changed Christianity or shaped Christianity.....etc. and things like that. What dies that mean?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Nov 22, 2013 11:44:20 GMT -6
That is a really good and, in some ways, really hard question to answer. People who don't like Christianity but are drawn to Jesus and people who are trying to discredit Christianity will claim that Paul changed it into a religion that Jesus would not recognize. In my opinion that is nonsense.
Essentially the documents we have, Paul's letters, show us Paul, the pastor, trying to deal with real life problems in both Jewish and Gentile (and mixed) churches in the early years of Christianity. He faced all the problems pastors have ever faced, factions arguing with one another, sin (in the case of Corinth, a city famous in ancient times for its debauched behavior, he dealt with a case of incest), the vexed question of how Christians should interact with non-Christians and much more. Once he had founded the churches for which he had pastoral responsibility, he didn't have the luxury of preaching moving sermons in public and moving on.
Jesus said "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But he didn't give us any practical advice about how to do that.
Well, Paul did. He was constantly working to show us how to make the message of Jesus real in our lives. Jesus did not leave a How-To manual behind. The New Testament shows us that the Apostles had differences of opinion about a number of matters. For instance, did the gentile converts need to be circumcised? Some said yes, others no. The first Church Council finally decided that the converts did not need to be circumcised.
So Paul definitively shaped the way we look at the questions the earliest Church had. But it is hard for me to see any way in which it can be honestly said that Paul changed the message of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Feb 12, 2014 11:01:28 GMT -6
Ok, this question is for everyone (Christians and Muslims), well I think more for Muslim I guess In Islam, Quran is a holly book for us because it is the word of God because God said and revealed the actual words. also in Islam, We believe the Bible is a Holly book (forgetting all the changes or alterations for now) how do We consider it the word of God since it is the writings of Men who are not Prophets? specially with the new testament!
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Feb 14, 2014 21:32:59 GMT -6
Ok, this question is for everyone (Christians and Muslims), well I think more for Muslim I guess In Islam, Quran is a holly book for us because it is the word of God because God said and revealed the actual words. also in Islam, We believe the Bible is a Holly book (forgetting all the changes or alterations for now) how do We consider it the word of God since it is the writings of Men who are not Prophets? specially with the new testament! Very good question. I will try a very simple answer first. Sometimes I tend to over explain and make things more confusing than they should be. We believe Everything Jesus(as) said was the word of Allaah(swt) While the NT is the words of witnesses and not of Prophets, they do contain quotes of Jesus(as) while the quotes may be in error, It is not up to us to judge what parts are not correct. For safety reasons we should treat the NT with respect and know that it does contain at least some words from Allaah(swt)
|
|
|
Post by francis on Mar 12, 2014 16:52:13 GMT -6
Essentially the documents we have, Paul's letters, show us Paul, the pastor, trying to deal with real life problems in both Jewish and Gentile (and mixed) churches in the early years of Christianity. He faced all the problems pastors have ever faced, factions arguing with one another, sin (in the case of Corinth, a city famous in ancient times for its debauched behavior, he dealt with a case of incest), the vexed question of how Christians should interact with non-Christians and much more. Once he had founded the churches for which he had pastoral responsibility, he didn't have the luxury of preaching moving sermons in public and moving on.
>snip<
Jesus did not leave a How-To manual behind. The New Testament shows us that the Apostles had differences of opinion about a number of matters.
I think the above comments by Maggie actually demonstrates the trustworthiness of the record of Jesus and His quotes that are found in the Gospels... as well as it demonstrates the honesty and trustworthiness of Paul himself. And I also think it helps us to date the Gospels. I mean think about it... if Paul was NOT honest... and if he wanted to promote himself and his beliefs and have people listen to him and believe him and accept everything he said... AND if the Gospels were written a long time after Jesus' death and resurrection when all these problems were occurring in the early church... can you imagine the incredible temptation by Paul... and the later authors... to add all kinds of things that Jesus "said" in order to "prove" their point... or to "win" and argument... in an attempt to resolve the early problems and conflicts going on in the early church? I mean, all Paul could have done is say: "Jesus said this. Therefore the matter is closed". But he didn't. This is but only one line of reasoning (among many others) which helps to convince me that the Gospels were not corrupted or tainted by later additions... but that they were written at a very early date and can be trusted. For me... another line of reasoning that helps me to trust that the Synoptic Gospels... and Paul's letters... were written very early... is that NONE OF THE PROBLEMS that would naturally be associated with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, is found in the NT at all. If Paul is writing and trying to solve the problems in the early church... why then are there no problems listed which would naturally be associated with such a catastrophic event like the destruction of the Temple? Can you imagine the incredible problems and the fear that would have occurred among the early churches if the Temple was destroyed? Problems with incest? lol That would be small potatoes compared to the problems and questions and fear that would have arisen if the Temple was destroyed before or during the writing of the Gospels and Paul's letters. Anyway... if Paul was trying to distort Jesus' teachings... he had ample opportunity... as did later authors... to make up and attribute all kinds of teachings to Jesus if he wanted to... in order to buttress and validate his own teachings and words found in his letters. That is why it perplexes me as to why anyone would think the quotes that are attributed to Jesus... may be in error at all. There is no reason or examples given to us for us to think there might be any errors in what has been attributed to Jesus. At least there are no errors which changes the meaning or the core teaching of Christianity. None. Anyway... this was just a very, very short comment since this topic can be very deep. Respectfully Francis
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Mar 12, 2014 18:57:08 GMT -6
Can you believe it? I have never once considered the destruction of the Temple as one of those reliable date markers. You need to come over more often. I obviously have a few things to learn.
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on May 6, 2014 13:18:47 GMT -6
How about the gospel of Barnabas? is it fake? what's the tell?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on May 7, 2014 6:35:51 GMT -6
Yes. It is a medieval fake. The Gospel of Barnabas is a very late book (medieval) and I know nothing about it. The Wiki description is fascinating. The was apparently edited to bring it in line with Islamic teachings and is accepted by some Muslims(how many? I don't know)as reflecting a suppressed apostolic book. I am going to have to do a little reading on this subject. If I learn anything really interesting, I will pass it on.
|
|