We are led to believe that Paul was the founder of church’s in gentile lands and that is not completely true, many small church’s had been founded before Pauls convertion he only visited and encouraged them, he was also known to infuriate some towns he visited with his stubborn and unyielding manner causing problems for the small but growing local church’s. His position within the church is probably down to the Romanization of the gospel’s that allowed the church to grow
One reason: There is a consensus among scholars that at least some of the Pauline epistles in the Bible were actually written by Paul, not too long after the lifetime of Jesus. The authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas, and other such documents that didn’t get included in the NT canon, is far more doubtful.
What is the deal with Jewish people calling the Tanakh the Bible? It’s not like any other religion uses that term. My understanding is that it comes \from Greek through Latin, and was always used to refer to Christian scriptures.
I guess I could understand saying Bible to reference the fact that the Tanakh is completely contained in the Christian scripture, being used for common ground when it is unmistakable what you mean.
But it seems weird to adopt a Christian word for it. I don’t know of any other religion that does this.
The only way it would make sense to me is if there is a parallel history of using the term among Jewish people, one that doesn’t come from the Christian usage at all.
Or at least dictated by him to his followers.
I guess I’m not really understanding the argument, either way. If a book of the bible says, say, “Tyre has been destroyed and not rebuilt”, then the way to show that’s false is to show that the city existed at the time the book of the bible was written. Tyre’s existence in 1980 doesn’t really have any relation to the truth claim of the book.
My friend was one of those who believes that the Book of Daniel foretells modern reality. e.g., the “legs of iron and clay” refer to the nations of modern Europe, as fragments of the Roman Empire. So when the Bible said that Tyre was not rebuilt, he takes that to mean not even now.
(Sort of the exact polar opposite of preterism!)
Tacitus says that Jerusalem was destroyed and not rebuilt. Does that make his writings inaccurate?
Does it mean that the statements given are for all time or accurate when written?
Youre underestimating how dumb biblical literalists can be.
AK84: no one claims that Tacitus was a prophet, and no one holds that his words are true unto the end of time. Some believers hold that Daniel was a prophet, and that his words are true to the end of time.
One such person (my friend) refused to believe in the existence of the modern city of Tyre, because it would have contradicted that interpretation of Daniel.
nicky has it exactly right: this variety of believer really is that dumb.
ETA: AK84: You’re missing a central point, by the way. I never claimed that the existence of Tyre disproves the book of Daniel. I said it disproves one vry limited interpretation of the Book of Daniel. If you ever meet someone who claims that Jerusalem cannot exist, because Tacitus said it was destroyed, that doesn’t prove Tacitus wrong. It proves that idiotic interpretation of Tacitus wrong. All square now?