Spero Forum - Baptist, Protestant, and Catholic Discussion
Username: Password: Save Password Forgot your Password?
Spero Forum - Baptist, Protestant, and Catholic Discussion

Go to your brother and tell him he has sinned!

Posted on 01/14/2010 at 21:48:04  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
In scriptures it is said in the church we are to go to our brother which i feel means member of the church, tell him he has sinned, and if he does not listen, take 2 and go to him, then if he still does not listen, Hand him over to satan! this is not being done it is all more...
Freedom!
from the community...
Page: of 2
Previous Page
Posted on 01/27/2010 at 13:00:25  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
It does not matter what order they were written. But Revelation was likely the last one, given that the author lived longer than the others. But it is also possible that the Gospel of John was the last book, though it seems more likely to have been written earlier - but after the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).

Matthew is historically said to have been the first written due to it having been first written in Hebrew or Aramaic which would have served the earliest Christians best (the first wave of Christians were Jewish and spoke Aramaic and were accustomed to having scriptures in Hebrew in that region). The author likely had the skills of a scribe being a tax collector, and after the first Christian martyr, the need to put things into writing would have become very apparent - especially given what happened to the their Jewish predecessors at the very beginning of the first century C.E. and just prior.

Mark was Peter's secretary and wrote his Gospel account in Rome, so this would have likely been a little later as Christianity spread out from Jerusalem (but not necessarily, or by much). Luke was Paul's travelling companion, but it is apparent even from his own introduction that he had other material to look at, and people to talk to - so I would expect that he had both Matthew's Gospel (which was taken abroad to other regions by this point) and Mark's very simple account.

The Epistles were written over a few decades, but again it really does not matter what order - though you can get a rough idea just from reading the Book of Acts for Paul's writings (and some scholars have attempted to date all of them). The epistles are arranged in order by size (largest to smallest) and addressee for the Pauline Epistles and also grouped by author, for simplicities sake. As I said, it does not matter what order they were written as later books in the New Testament would not have overturned anything written in earlier books.
Pax et Bonum,

Faith_at_Large


"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Go to Top of Page
Posted on 01/27/2010 at 13:01:54  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
FYI, in the beginning, each book of the Bible was a separate scroll. It was only later that they were assembled into a book form together.
Pax et Bonum,

Faith_at_Large


"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Go to Top of Page
Posted on 01/27/2010 at 18:59:25  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
AHAH! So there are 600, something seperate scrolls out there? Where are they housing these? Don't you even want to read the? I do! lacy-1
Freedom!
Go to Top of Page
Posted on 01/27/2010 at 23:13:22  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
No. The Bible only has 46 books in the OT and 27 in the NT. It is possible that some were combined on a single scroll on occassion, and others could be on more than one scroll, although I do not know of any.

There are a very large number of scrolls out there, but they would be multiple copies of various books. And there are scrolls of other books that are not in the Bible. In most cases, the scrolls are very old and brittle so it is not good to handle them any more than necessary.

I would rather read them in books, there is a reason that books replaced scrolls once we figured out how to make books. If you want to see a scroll, you might want to go to a synagogue. They might still have some in use, including some newer ones (newly copied, not new scriptures) - but they are never touched with bare hands.
Pax et Bonum,

Faith_at_Large


"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Go to Top of Page
Posted on 01/31/2010 at 16:57:52  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
Faith to me the order of the books means some thing and they should be in order and dated around what time they were written because people always say that the bible is contradictions, but if they knew when they were written and how long in between each book was then they would believe better, if Gods house is in order His book should be also! lacy-1
Freedom!
Go to Top of Page
Posted on 01/31/2010 at 23:03:52  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0
When people get too focused on things like dates and order, they are seeking loopholes to avoid listening to what is in the scriptures.

For example, I have read of some Christians who have decided that Matthew was written in the second century by a disciple of the Apostles. The excuse given was that Matthew could not have written about the fall of Jerusalem so perfectly in advance of the event (in spite of the fact that this was Jesus making the prophecy). But the effect of the later dating was that because if it was not written by an apostle then it was not authoritative, and therefore could be ignored. This excuse was used by some to diminish the effect of Christ's words in Matthew 16:18-19 and refute the Papacy.

These so-called Christians were not interested in the Truth of what the Scriptures said but sought ways to get around them.

Matthew was likely written with a decade or two of Christ's ascension, but it does not matter when. What is important are the contents of the scriptures. IF Jesus felt that it was important to know precisely when any book was written, then He would have inspired the authors to date their work. Any date they put on would be according to the calendar in place at the time so you would still not know when without further research, but would have the order.

Would knowing the order elimate what any perceive as "contradictions"? Doubtful. What would help is knowing more about the historical context and culture of the books. For example, one "contradiction" makes reference to two different men serving as high priest during a particular time (Mark 2:26 vs 1 Samuel 21:1 and 22:20) - it sounds like a contradiction, unless you understand that in that culture two high priests could serve at the same time, a father and son (or son-in-law) might serve at the same time, and did (Luke 3:2).

Dating is interesting, but it does not really change anything, but knowing the intricasies of the culture and history of the Bible does help to shed some light on the supposed contradictions.
Pax et Bonum,

Faith_at_Large


"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2
Previous Page

Newest Topics

by lacy-1...

 

Recent Topics

2 replies
 

Newest Updates

29 replies
Jump To:
Spero Forum - Baptist, Protestant, and Catholic Discussion © 2002-2014 Spero Subscribe by Email RSS Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000