Along these lines, it is important to clarify that for the majority of Christian history, the word “homosexuality” was not used in the Bible. In fact, homosexuality first appeared in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in 1946. This, however, does not mean that the Bible never mentioned same-sex acts, only that “homosexuality” had not existed to define these acts. This section and the next, “The Mass Legalization of Homosexual Marriage and Rights” do experience some overlap due to their similarity and
The example he used was the phrase “godisnowhere (48).” Ehrman said that two people could get two completely different meanings from that. Either “god is nowhere” or “god is now here.” Chapter 3 opens with an explanation of how the transmission of the Bible changed when Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. The incredible history of the Vulgate and the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament are described, including the difficulties linked with limited Greek manuscript availability. The rest of the chapter provides a brief
Christianity and Judaism are similar and different in many ways. Christianity has a close relationship with Judaism, both historically and theologically. Jesus’ family followed Jewish customs and Jesus frequently quoted the Hebrew Bible. The first Christian council, convened by the apostles, concluded that pagan converts to Christianity did not have to follow Jewish ritual laws. Today, theological disagreements between Christians and Jews remain, but greater understandings and respect between the two great faiths.
Cutler in trying to describe what he contends to be “One of the greatest moments in history.” Implies that Peter the Hermit attempted to convert Kerbogha to Christianity. However, Cutler’s states that scholars have questioned, “whether we can know anything at all about what went on between Peter and Kerbogha.” The author attempts to prove that conversion was a primary topic during Peter the Hermit’s embassy with Kerbogha. He cites four early primary sourced documents. Regrettably, there is nothing to support Cutler’s premise that the First Crusade was not only a mission of war, but also one of religious conversion. Cutler determined that “it will not be possible…to reconstruct what really happened
Any analysis that considers Jesus Christ and his proclamations historically inaccurate, make the whole Bible worthless. Arguments swing widely between them being either accurate in their portrayal of historical events, or that very few of the events described took place. Many scholars would agree that Christ is a historical figure. The issues that cause controversy are the miraculous events surrounding His life. For this reason, researching the historical accuracy of the setting in the Gospels is crucial to the argument regarding the authenticity of
Mark’s gospel includes no account of Jesus birth but starts with a quote from Isaiah about a voice crying out to prepare the way of the Lord (Mark 1:2-3). The gospel then shifts to tell the story of John the baptist and how he fulfilled the prophecy set in Isaiah (1:4-11). In the passage we also read how John baptised Jesus and and a voice rained down from heaven to declare Jesus as God’s son (Mark 1:9-11). In Mark’s view he places the emphasis on how Jesus’ ministry began and not how his life began, leaving Mary out of the origin
For example, when the man brought his son with the unclean spirit, he implored Jesus by saying “have pity on us and help us” (9:22). This mutual pleading for and display of sympathy appears to be a significant feature throughout Mark’s Gospel. I conclude that for Mark, Jesus responding with pity may have played an important role in encouraging a group of people who were facing great trials at that
That new name is written on his crown in Revelation 19, and is known to none other than to him alone. But we are informed that the name is written on the foreheads of his elect 144,000 in Revelation 7, 9, etc. That name would be his new name, or God’s dispensational name in the Dispensation of the Millennium. He will probably have it alongside with the name “Jesus” because the work of salvation will still go on during the millennial period, until «the new heaven and the new earth» appear. Since this name will be the new name of Jesus during the millennial dispensation, it follows that that will be God’s new name in the Dispensation of the Millennium.
The author tell if removing the historical section of the Bible we would still have a good portion left to support that it is the word of God, which the author sees clearly that they enter twain with each to prove history. Here is Oswalt concluding observation to the second question- does it matter in the end whether these accounts are historical or not? “The answer to the question is “no.” The conclusion with the scripture of Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 15:13-17, speaks very clearly about if Jesus Christ be not raised from the dead then believing of the gospel is in vain. That God did raise Christ from the dead and we whom have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior are still in sin, if there be no resurrection. Oswalt left the readers
I believe this to be a moot point because even if Luke did write about them after the fact, Jesus still prophesied them in AD 30 when he preached this sermon. So, it was clearly predictive prophecy. However, I find it harder to believe that Luke would not give some indication in the text that the temple and Jerusalem had been destroyed if he were writing after this siege took place. So, it makes sense to me to date the book of Acts from shortly after the events that it describes took place (AD 65) and then Luke would have been written shortly before the book of