Talk:New Testament

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why would the date for the books of the Bible go to 140 A.D. when traditional Christian thought believes that John wrote the last book, Revelation at 100 A.D. at the latest? Learn together 00:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Please start explaining your reasons for gutting large parts of this article, okay? "Silence isn't a good teacher" someone once said....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes indeed. I tried to keep the article on the New Testament focused on the New Testament itself. In traditional Christian thought, the 4 gospels were written and completed before most or possibly all of the other 16 works mentioned were written. We could of course get branch off on gnosticism, and, let's face it, it would be easy to fill many pages of information on non-biblical ancient works including the ones mentioned and many others. And there may well be a place for that, but I think it would go beyond what I assume readers would want to see when they check up the article. What is the New Testament? At least those were my thoughts. Thanks Learn together 11:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well thought! However, I would submit, even though I am not much of a Biblical scholar, the title is what? So perhaps some mention of the other books covering the New Testament of Jesus Christ should logically be included? Thoughts? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I would say no because it's unclear how much they have to do with the New Testament. Based on supporting writings from the early fathers, the answer in almost every case is none. Basically all we'd be doing is clumping together any works that date in the first 400 years after Jesus's death and piggy backing them on the New Testament when that really wouldn't be appropriate. There are different works we could bring up that do have historical significance. For instance the Gospel of Peter was in use for many years but was ultimately not included in the New Testament because it was determined it had been written after Peter's Death. There were also books that are included in the New Testament that were questioned. For instance Revelation was questioned because, quite frankly, no one could really understand it. I strongly recommend the following site as the best put together and most thorough compilation and history of that period [[1]]. Just browsing through it will give you a much greater 'feel' on what went into the New Testament and why. If I were ever to flesh out this article or other ancient writings, that's what I would use. That's my 2 cents anyway. ;-) Learn together 12:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The New Testament is remarkably free of grammatical errors

That's a remarkable statement: one argument which scholars use to claim that the gospel of Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels is that the grammatical error which can be found in this gospel are corrected by Matthew and Luke (e.g., compare Mark 10:20 and Matthew 19:20). --AugustO 04:37, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Personal tools