OT - Understanding "The Bible"

[Derek Broughton]

Kelly L. Fulks wrote:

> Billie Walsh wrote:
>> Probably going to make a few enemies here.

Probably.  It really _isn't_ necessary to discuss this on an Ubuntu list.

>> Third. No part of the New Testament was written during, or immediately
>> after, the life of Jesus. The oldest books were written down about
>> eighty years after his death. 
...
>> The best way to read, and understand, the "New Testament" is in the
>> original Greek. 
...
> Let me say that this is way OT.  I started not to reply to it, but I
> finally convinced myself that you said a few things that are so far off
> target, that I had to respond.  

Indeed

> However, I do not think that this 
> deserves further response on this list.  

Hey, it's a thread - everybody gets their say!

> Third, I don't know of anyone that would argue the point of nothing in
> the New Testament being written during the life of Jesus.  The first
> books were likely written about 20 years after his death.  However, your 
> 80 year estimate is likely way off.  Since many of the books of the New
> Testament were letters written by the Apostle Paul and since he was
> killed in about A.D. 67, it is likely that most of the books were
> written before that.  

The Gospels were written later, but iirc the first of those probably 30
years after Jesus' death.

> It is highly unlikely that he wrote these letters 
> after his death.  The last books written were written by the Apostle
> John who died around A.D. 100, so that is still less than 70 years after
> the death of Jesus.

That's highly arguable.  The Gospel and Revelation could be well after
100AD. I was taught that the Gospel is from c. 130AD, but admittedly that
was many years ago and history, surprisingly, changes...

> I won't disagree with you that understanding history is important to
> understanding the Bible.  History confirms so many of the prophesies in
> the Bible.  

Ack!!!  Name one - and prove that the so-called prophecy actually referred
to what you want it to!  Prophecy is a wonderful thing, because if it's not
so obscure that anything could be interpreted from it, well, history's very
long and sooner or later something will happen that matches the prophecy. 
cf. the event that caused the whole New Testament.  Jesus may be the
Messiah prophecied by Isaiah - he meets the criteria, but so could any
descendant of David, and the Jews explicitly don't accept that he was the
fulfilment of the prophecy.

> I will somewhat disagree with you on reading in Greek.  

Especially since some of the earliest texts were Aramaic...

> Using the QT library
> without having a QT reference handy isn't very smart either.  

Hey!!  No fair using an on-topic reference!  (Not that I necessarily agree -
references are handy, they're not always definitive).
-- 
derek