These twenty seven books were not the only testimonies written in the first century about the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, however their importance anchored their inclusion into the New Testament canon. The word canon comes from
Now, even though both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are not the same, what is even more concerning is that neither is overly correct. In regards to Matthews take on Jesus’ genealogy, one can see that his “genealogy suggests — indeed, it almost demonstrates— that the entire course of Israel’s history has proceed according to divine providence” (Ehrman116). However, historians today know roughly two thirds of Jesus’ genealogy and when checked against other sources, the sequence that Matthew alludes to does not hold up. Many names were omitted, and probably done so because if he had included them Jes... ... middle of paper ... ...ely historically correct in order to show important he would be to the people. Ultimately, both Matthew and Luke’s gospels have different and and even inaccurate historical information in their birth narratives of Jesus.
Choosing the book of Revelation for this research paper will give me the opportunity to gain a better understanding of what is in my perspective is one of the most important books in the bible. The identity of the author of the book of Revelation has been and still is under debate. External evidence reveals that the earliest individual known to have been knowledgeable with the book of Revelation was Papias, who was considered among the disciple of John. He was a compiler of sayings and teachings of Jesus, which made up his sayings about the lord in a total of five books. However no clear statement from Papias has been found concerning his identity in relation to the book of Revelation.
The article Gospel of Mark, explains controversial evidence found by scholars about the origin and theological understanding of the Gospel book. The scholars go on to explain the different categories within the book of Gospels such as date, authorship, purpose, and theology of Mark of the Gospel is controversial to devout Christians. These facts however can be controversial to orthodox, how the Christians believe in the accurate understanding of the book because it was eyewitness account, divine dictation; it also tells the biography of Jesus, and recorded history, along with Mark being the sole author of it. The article is preserved devoted Christians believe that the Gospel is written by Mark himself, who was also an observer of the Jesus adult life. However, in the article there is nowhere in the Gospel does Mark mention to himself, the article says, “mark was written down, perhaps even in rudimentary collection, before the writer incorporated it into his gospel.
If Jesus Christ wasn’t fully God and man like he claimed he was in the Gospels, then how could Christians trust what any of the books in the New Testament were claiming? If the books of the Bible were not the inspired word of God, then why would a Christian follow anything that’s written in the Bible? Without these two fundamental views, why would anyone bother being a Christian in the first place, that’s what I believed when I was writing my week one discussion board post. During the seven weeks of the BIB218: The Survey of the New Testament course, I learned a lot about the New Testament books. I gained knowledge about each of the New Testament books both
In trying to uncover the historical facts surrounding Jesus, many scholars are lacking much physical evidence that is typically associated with proving that an event or person existed. The biggest source of information on Jesus lies within the New Testament of the Bible. The New Testament provides a glance into the beliefs, sayings and works of the man that is believed to be the son of God. It does not, however, provide a clear time frame for when those things were accomplished. The Bible is written more as a theological account rather than a historical record (Harris 281).With little to no additional resources to confirm Jesus’ existence and doings, it becomes almost impossible to confirm via modern methods what Christians believe as an absolute truth.
The Gospel were not first hand accounts except for Mark. John did not seem to have known the existence of the other 3 gospels. The Gospels were wrote about 90 - 100 c.e. This particular Gospel was compressed from a number oral (and perhaps a few written) stories and sayings. The composer of Johns Gospel took some stories and arranged them in his own way.
He became very fascinated by the teachings of Paul but eventually he would interpret them in such an unbalanced way that he was considered a heretic. He would compete with the early Christian church by starting his own rival church this would go on for several decades. He would teach that the God of the Old Testament was not the father of Jesus Christ instead he was an evil deity. When he formed his books, he would leave out the books of the New Testament that were most reliant on Judaism he would also leave out the Old Testament. In a reaction against Marcion, a proposal like this would make sense.
No one church or group decided what books would be included in the bible, but some stronger religious groups were able to overpower the smaller sects which resulted it a Bible that reflect the views of some sects which lead to the demise of smaller sects that supported other gospels and stories that were not included in the Bible. In addition to what gospels and stories made it into the Bible the interpretation of theses texts was also determined by the group that had the most power at the time. For example, the Arians had some very unique beliefs when it comes to interpretations of Jesus Christ. Manny of the Arians’ beliefs were not accepted by the church. Today the Arians are considered to be the losers in the battle for what would constitute orthodoxy in the medieval ... ... middle of paper ... ...ect, religion, or group that has more power will write history in the way they want that event or story to be viewed in years to come.
If they truly desire God, then God will go to them. Overall, I thought that Church History in Plain Language was good book to read if you want to learn on Christianity’s history. I now have knowledge on the Christian Councils, Scholasticism, Christendom, and an idea on what modern trends of Christianity are. Reading this book has shown me how Christianity has grown throughout the ages, as well as the mistakes some of it proponents have made. The history of the church is far from over.