This is not the cause of Trump's tariff policy though -- he was born rich.
I've only know one. And of course he was a soccer parent, and a dreadful one at that. Oddly enough, his son, who was positively dreadful, made the academy every year, didn't play a lick, but somehow ended up on a D1 roster, and once again, not playing a lick. Every travel trip he literally bought a billion drinks for everyone (x3 for the coaching staff); took the coaches golfing twice a month in the nice weather; and of course paid for a new field. Now his wife was sarah meek and mild, never said a cross word about anyone, rolled her eyes at her husband 30 times again, and was a pleasure. Unfortunately, she looked like a female version of that actor who played Booger in Revenge of the Nerds.
Dying. I know one of those well too. Gallagher kid partners with the owner of world wide tech. Played at Slu . Definition of pay to play. The other founder was my sometimes partner sometimes office mate sometimes office landlord’s client. Now the richest black man in America if not the world. My buddy tells a great story about when they were getting started he went to his office to pick up a check. Client said I can only pay you part of it. Outside the window a tow truck rolled up to repo his car. 35 years later worth 10 bil or something
But that would require the pastors to be able to read at least that one book.
Pastors should stick to things like religion. Nobody can be wrong or right about things that are made up.
And the parents you are stuck with, too.
Do you even realize you are using the Bible itself to prove the validity of the Bible?
Actually, a collection of stories is exactly what the bible is--27 books written by 20 different authors over 100 plus years from the death of Jesus.
And then there are the other variables, such as (1) portions of original writings in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and sometimes Latin, (2) non-identical versions of some of the books in different manuscripts, and (3) as many as 900 different translations of the Bible into English.
bibleproject.com
You talking New Testament. The oldest scrap (so far) of an Old Testament book is from 6th Century BC. THE Ketef Hinnom scrolls were silver found in 1979, and were 500 +/- years older than the then-oldest.
After a century of looking, we only have 11 or 12 fragments of second century new testament materials. While you would hope we could find first century, it is unlikely that we do. I think the fragment you mentioned re: John was found in an ancient trash heap, and in dreadful shape. But it is better than nothing
I've seen too many people from the same family end up at opposite ends of the financial/social spectrums to blame 'society' for the unequal outcomes.
lol Had to look that one up
The Bible in the New Testament was written before 70 a.d. because Jerusalem was destroyed then. The only book written after 70 a.d. was the book of Revelation. Paul was beheaded d by Nero around 66a.d. Notice at the end of Acts he is still alive. Then you think that Acts was the second book written by Luke. So what we are doing is moving further back in time. F.F. Bruce the archeology expert used Luke as a guide to dig. If Luke said a place existed on a certain place it was proven by the dig.
Well we are going to have to disagree Padre. The vast amount of scholarship that has gone into dating the new testament state otherwise--with the major exceptions being conservative evangelicals who date them earlier, so they can continue the charade of saying Mathew and John were written by Jesus' disciples.
Ff Bruce's comment was that Luke lived during that time. One thing I want you to think about is this. If these books were written after 70a.d. then why didn't they mention the destruction of Jerusalem? What you are mentioning in Mark's Gospel is prophecy. Jesus did say it would be destroyed because of the people's unbelief. But if they had believed then it would not have happened
I gave you the citations regarding the temple destruction. When is a Christian author likely to record a prediction of Jesus in order to show that he predicted something accurately? Obviously, in order to show that Jesus knew what he was talking about, an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled. Otherwise, the reader would be left hanging, not knowing if Jesus was a true prophet or not. So even if we assume that Jesus did predict such things, the fact that they are written so confidently by later authors suggests that they did so after the events took place, that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 c.e.
Mark, I tend to believe the Gospels were written later in the 1st or 2nd centuries, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Oral histories have proved to be very accurate in many cases.
I'm not talking about whether any book in the NT is right or wrong substantively. Only the dating. I have no doubt that the apostles were real. Did they all met their death violently? Maybe? Nobody can know for sure. There are no Roman accounts of any of the disciples deaths. Or at least none that we have records for.
Yeah - I went to Thanksgivings and Christmases at my paternal great-grandfather/great-grandmothers house. His father fought in The Civil War. So stories from the 1860's were being passed on to me in the 1960's though my grandfathers' family.
A different theory about this. While there is a strong correlation between income and a successful life, the determining factor may not be money, but genetics.
Different? This is what I've been arguing for four pages.A different theory about this. While there is a strong correlation between income and a successful life, the determining factor may not be money, but genetics.
“Stage 3: (late 1990s – today): The intergenerational income correlation is indeed quite high. But twin and adoption studies show that most or all of this correlation stems from heredity. The reason why kids from rich families do well isn’t that mom and dad buy their way through life. The reason, rather, is that rich families have genes that cause financial success, and pass these genes on to their kids. (Casual consumers of this literature often get confused by the fact that the effect of IQ is far too small to explain the intergenerational income correlation. The key thing to remember is that there is a lot more to genetics and success than IQ).”
Even though genes might predispose individuals to achieve different levels in life, “make better choices” is a vitally important guide. Not all of us perform at optimum levels. Perhaps most of us operate at levels well below optimal.
This is correct. It's generally a staple of textual analysis to date references to actual historical events to after those actual events happened. To do otherwise would make no sense.
I found this great video. Take a look at Lee Strobel's explanation about the very first Christian Creed and how early it came into existence. There is also an explanation that was very good about how could the disciples remember what Jesus said 10 or 20 yrs later. Good stuff.
Most believe Mark was written first because Matthew and Luke use Mark as a reference. So Mark, who was a traveling companion with Peter first, then Paul got his information from Peter Himself. In the video I sent you it does talk about this. I do not accept the Gospel accounts to be anything but a historical narrative of what happened. I am not sure what you are referencing to about Peter in Acts 4.
You keep changing the goalposts a bit--we aren't talking about faith/truth in the representations of the gospels, etc. I will grant you all of that because it is irrelevant to the issue of DATING the gospels, which was the original and ONLY premise. We could have a discussion on this stuff, and I'm perfectly capable of doing such, and will heartily agree to such a debate/conversation--but that wasn't a topic to discuss. I'm familiar with all sources cited in the video and elsewhere. You don't have convince me that a Jesus existed, that he was an apocalyptical preacher and itinerant rabbi who was crucified by Pontius Pilate (and we know about Pilate because Philo mentions the cruelty of Pontius Pilate and was writing about Pilate shortly after the time of Jesus Death (but makes no mention of Jesus).
that's not right either. Paul's information came from Jesus (according to Paul). Recall your lessons from Galatians 2: 11-19 where Paul (once again), rebukes peter for following Jewish law. Galatians 5:12, where Paul discusses the apostles/disciples and says out lout, “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” In other words, Paul is telling the disciples to cut their penises off. He then states "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ"
What are you saying when you say, "that's not right either"? Are you saying Peter was not an apostle because he did wrong? He wasn't following Jewish law by spending more time with the Jews and ignoring the gentiles. He was not following the Spirit who lives in Jew and Gentile who received Christ as Savior. Paul's statement about cutting it all off was about those who believed gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved. They were called Judaizers, who believed you believe in Jesus and follow the Law to be saved. This was not Paul's Gospel He received from Christ.
Here is my bottom line. If the Gospels were written after 70a.d. then there would have to have been mentions of Jerusalem being destroyed. For Jews this would be a huge event. Therefore these books were written before that date. Revelation was written afterwards but notice how John saw a New Jerusalem. Why did he have to mention this? It would be for Jewish people who lost their physical city. A better and eternal city is coming down out of Heaven so be encouraged.
I did not mean that. I meant that Mark got his information from Peter because he was a traveling companion with both Peter and Paul. By the way watch that video I sent. Good stuff in there.
