English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is it true?

2007-10-19 11:13:21 · 11 answers · asked by Joe 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Well the thing i heard is that paul doesnt mention jesus at all during his teachings.And his teachings began way before jesus.

2007-10-19 12:31:11 · update #1

11 answers

Paul does not mention Jesus? You could have disproved this yourself by reading any of Paul's letters- Jesus is mentioned in each of them as far as I know.

There is a lot of debate about the order of the New Testament. We sort of know when each part was written... sorta, but some of the books were oral before they were written- so how do you count that?

Acts sort of illustrates the problem. It was one of the later books written, but it talks about things that happen in many letters, and things that happen after the Gospels. If we put things in order of when they were written, we would have several letters that would not make much sense, followed by Mark, some more letters, another Gospel, etc.\

The current order may be a bit artificial, but it makes for a better flow of information.

2007-10-19 12:42:13 · answer #1 · answered by Madkins007 7 · 0 0

Actually, Mark is presumed to be the earliest, followed by Matthew, John and then Luke. Although it is possible that John's was written during his exile and was later than Luke's.

But really, the issue is that people didn't put dates on things like we do now, and nobody really knows for sure. And honestly, it doesn't matter.

Matthew is in there first because the Gospel's message is directed to Jewish people, which makes it a nice transition from the Old Testament. Then comes Mark's, which is simpler. Luke was an historian, so his is like the "history book" of the four, and then we have John's, written by one of the "inner three" of the 12 disciples and overflowing with Christ's love for us. (Mark's, by the way, is thought to be more of Peter's perspective, written by one of Peter's assistants, John-Mark.)

2007-10-19 11:24:16 · answer #2 · answered by sparki777 7 · 1 0

One simple way is to begin where the Mass readings of the day are taken -- and expand to read that entire chapter, or more if it makes sense to do so. This builds on the fact that in three years, if we attend every Sunday Mass, we will have heard the entire Bible read aloud. But your personal reading needn't take three years. It's just helpful to tie it in with the Mass readings -- after a short while you begin to see the themes running through the whole of Scripture that you might miss by just reading a book at a time.

2016-05-23 20:39:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Books of the Bible are not necessarily in chronological order, New Testament, or Old. However...

Matthew, traditionally believed written about 37 C.E.
Mark, traditionally viewed as written between 57 and 63 C.E.
Luke, traditionally viewed as written between 63 and 68 C.E.
John is though to have been written 85-90 C.E., most likely the latter.
So in the case of the Gospels, they ARE laid out chronologically.

2007-10-19 11:25:34 · answer #4 · answered by Bob L 7 · 0 0

They are not in the order that they were written, no. But they are in chronological order. For instance, Paul wrote about the early church. Years later, the apostles wrote letterrs about The life of Jesus. Well, because Jesus came first, they are put in that order. For instance, If I drew a picture of you as a teen. Then tomorrow, I drew what you looked like as a baby. Then as an adult, I would organize them in chronological order, baby, teen, adult. The organizers of the Bible did just that. They organized them in the order of events, not when the letters were written.

2007-10-19 11:26:12 · answer #5 · answered by Adan 2 · 0 0

Some of paul's books may have been written before some of the gospels if that's what you mean. But I think the NT is put together in the order of what happened instead of the order it was written.

2007-10-19 11:21:30 · answer #6 · answered by jerrri 4 · 0 0

Not what you are proposing but the chronology would put Revelations in front of John's own gospel record. Thus, one could argue that John added to his own record. The Books of Peter, John and Jude would all go in front of Paul's epistles as well.

2007-10-19 11:24:51 · answer #7 · answered by rac 7 · 1 0

Nope. The bibles order is just as it should be.
It shows Times PAST which is Gen thru Acts when God is dealing with the nation Israel,

But NOW (Romans thru Philemon), where God is dealing with we who are the church the Body of Christ,

and Ages to COME (Hebrews thru Revelation) where God is again dealing with the nation Israel.

Its laid out just as it occurs in historical TIME.

Pauls letters are OUR mail today, and the rest is instructions to the nation Israel in times PAST and ages to COME . Eph 2:11, 13 and verse 7.

Visit our BRAND NEW FORUM at www.graceteacher.com for more information and FREE study material!

2007-10-19 11:21:27 · answer #8 · answered by goinupru 6 · 0 1

Many of the Bible books are not arranged in order of time written, if that is what you mean. It is not a secret.

2007-10-19 11:41:57 · answer #9 · answered by Pinkribbon 4 · 0 0

the books are not in chronological order as to when they where wrote,the order was decided by Constantine as well as the books to include/exclude in it

2007-10-19 11:22:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers