How the black man embraced Christianity

[Angrboda]

[Drich]

I believe the 70 ad or post temple destruction dating of any book is foolishness. Granted the temples destruction could be a rallying cry for those who knew of the apostles stories, but the one thing the temple afforded that post temple dates do not, is infrastructure to support the written records. Remember this society was verbal, in that most people do not trust the written word like people now do not trust personal accounts. why? because 2% could read and or write and to have someone translate, they could tell you anything and you would have no way of knowing the truth.

As such those readers and writers had a small niche collective penned around the temple. meaning all of the educated were taught there, they sourced their supplies there and they preserved their works there in scriptoriums. After 70 ad these resources were scattered to the wind. yet somehow according to modern scholarship most of the book containing prophesy were written at this time except the books of the OT which we have proof of at or before the birth of Christ calling for the same destruction. (modern scholars tend to only look at the books of Christ's phroprosephy and post date those)

That said the other inconsistent items is the life of the apostles themselves. Granted they thought (because they misunderstood what Christ said again) Jesus would be back before they died. so for 25-30 or so years nothing was written down. then they started dying/being martyred. by the late 50's anti-Christian sentiment was kick off in full swing. in less than 10 years after that Rome captured the two 'fathers of Christianity Peter and Paul and had them executed in 68 AD.

Which gave these two 10 years to write out their gospels and all their final letters. which is EXACTLY what Paul and Peter did which is where we get 95% of the NT. Yet according to modern scholars they wrote out 95% of the bible yet left out the gospel... You know the beginning that ties everything together?! Let me ask you when you write do you start out in the middle, and pan to have someone else tie everything you wrote together around a central character? That would be like leaving the single most important character's development to someone, after you die...

Do you just start preaching at a group of people? or do you start out in the beginning? with baby Jesus then teen Jesus then his baptism then all of his works his teachings his conflicts his death burial and resurrection his resurrection and all of his teaching after word... then the holy Spirit (which again is another reason for acts before mark) That all speaks to an authority far greater than any of us, yet this critical teaching it is left to some one else after The two church Father's death? arguably the two that knew him the best??? Why would a primary source like these two leave no provision of the most important story ever told??? That is what modern scholars would have you believe in a post 70 ad account of the gospels. Even if it was not the most important thing to you. it was their whole lives.. it was the reason the died horrible deaths it was far more important to them.. yet again they were supposed to have just let it go? That is beyond foolishness given the completeness of their other written works. We would not have a NT if not for the works of these two that pre 70AD... Can you see the inconsistency? that is why I do not believe these dates.

[Demi92]

Actually this is a better depiction of Atheism
Marxism - Socialism - Neo Marxism

[brewer]

I smell a sock.

[Godscreated]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

[Crossless2.0]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

Congratulations! You have posted what is quite possibly the most inane 'thought' ever written on a public forum.

[Godscreated]

True the atheist religion is the do nothing to improve one's life religion.

GC

Congratulations! You have posted what is quite possibly the most inane 'thought' ever written on a public forum.

Why, because I'm smart enough to realize that even a religion of complete denial is still a religion, just look at the way atheist act and it will be apparent, first take off the blinders.

GC

[Succubus]

A religion of denial. How does that work?

[Amarok]

Why, because I'm smart enough to realize that even a religion of complete denial is still a religion, just look at the way atheist act and it will be apparent, first take off the blinders.

No Crossless this is the most inane ever posted on a public forum