For me the Bible is more than just a book, it is a word of God. God may not have written the Bible psychically but was a huge inspiration for it. There’s the Old Testament and New Testament, both written by different people. You have Moses who wrote the old and the four gospels; Matthew,
Kärkkäinen states that the Bible itself did not give us any physical idea or image of who Christ was as a person (22). Kärkkäinen’s perception of the abstract stories, analogies, and pictures was not of a schematized doctrine but a “lived Christology” (22). Theologian’s use of historical books, documents that were written in the first century or other early theologians writings to clarify who Jesus is today. However, the most complete idea of Christ derives it image from ... ... middle of paper ... ...evelop into a persuasive witness in own culture. This is one of the best books I have read concerning Christology.
He then goes on to say that the only reason we can know that the Bible is from God is because the Bible says as much, which, in the eyes of a skeptic, would not make any logical sense. In the section about important considerations, the author asserts that there were debates over which books would be included in the canon and that the occurrence of these debates doesn’t affect the authenticity of the canon, but gives no reasoning or justification. Aside from the aforementioned issues, the author did a good job of compiling the historical facts and dates, which make good evidence of the Bible’s consistency.
Some historians, however, believe that the Canonical Gospels were not closed (or completed) by the time of the council and that the council itself began a conspiracy by falsely describing Jesus' public life and ministry which is widely accepted today. Most orthodox Christians, theologians, and historians believe that indeed the Canons were completed well before the council sat (some 200 years later) to authorise them. What I wish to achieve in my major work is to identify in the light of Dan Brown's novel the issue which is being debated, the primary historians involved, other objective and not directly related historians and their work, and to establish reasoning for the differing perspectives. To aid me in this, the following initial focus questions have been developed: What is the issue being debated? Who are the historians (and scholars) for both sides?
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” in Matthew 12:39 NIV. One might take this as a hint that if Jesus does not want to supply a sign or tell of sign then, the... ... middle of paper ... ....: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999. 137-149 . MacLeod, David J. "The First "Last Thing" : The Second Coming of Christ (Rev 19:11-16)."
The Gospel of Mark was included however, the Gospel of Thomas (discussed earlier) was not. Mark wrote his book as told to him from the apostle Peter, meeting the requirement of apostolic authorship. As the Baker Handbook points out, the Gospel of Thomas, was not even in the early list of the Marcion Canon so it may not have yet been written during that time or because it was determined it was written “recently.” As such, the Gospel of Thomas did not meet the apostolic authorship or divine inspiration requirement of the
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ No other event in history has been the object of as much scrutiny and criticism as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is the basis upon which all Christianity stands. If the resurrection never happened, then there would be no Christianity, as the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." This is why opponents of the Christian faith have tried to attempt to discredit the Biblical account of the resurrection. Of the many theories of the resurrection, the Biblical account is the only historically reliable and possible explanation of the resurrection.
The fact that there were certain books out in the public that were written by followers of Jesus and recognized as being just as authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures was never under debate. The disagreement between some groups of Christians and Gnostics centered on which exact group of books were divinely inspired and which were not. The debate also took place over the way we can know for sure what God would have us include in a book of divinely inspired writings. This ultimately led to the formation of the Biblical canon in the next centuries. Some may ask, “Isn’t Jesus really the only thing that we can and should call God’s Word?” and “Isn’t the Bible just a man made collection of writings all centered on the same thing, Jesus Christ?” This paper summarizes some of the evidences for the Old and New Testament canon’s accuracy in choosing God breathed, authoritative writings and then reflects on the wide ranging implications of the process.
Should the letters included in the modern New Testament even be believed to be actual, authoritative Scripture? This, although not a pressing issue in the twenty-first century, was a issue in dire need of attention during the time of the early church. However, it should be noted that although many people have believed (and continue to believe) that the New Testament is not th... ... middle of paper ... ...Who Gave us the New Testament.” Orthodox Research Institute, September. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/bernstein_who_gave_nt.htm. Bruce, F.F., 1954.