Religion

[Octavian]

but surely you have to decide if the 4 gospels are to be taken literally, thats what was in the authors mind i'e a blow by blow account of jesus's life
or its made up to suit a narrative for the early christian movement
that's why personally mark is the important tome as its the first, the others are copies and rewrites

See my post to Paul Simpson above. I don’t think we can take them literally as historical fact. There are inconsistencies across all four gospels. There’s a good chance things like the Sermon on the Mount happened as it’s covered multiple times with similar dialogue but then as an example we cannot be confident on some quotes attributed to Jesus in John.

So in essence I agree.

 

[Octavian]

Well...I maintain that he IS ;)

I’d push you towards actual scholars and to listen to Christian and Non-Christian ones.

 

[tonea2003]

See my post to Paul Simpson above. I don’t think we can take them literally as historical fact. There are inconsistencies across all four gospels. There’s a good chance things like the Sermon on the Mount happened as it’s covered multiple times with similar dialogue but then as an example we cannot be confident on some quotes attributed to Jesus in John.

So in essence I agree.

so this is the issue and we've been around this circle a few times now, what is fact if there is any and how do we know
and i'm talking gospels now, because really they are the only ones that count

 

[Octavian]

so this is the issue and we've been around this circle a few times now, what is fact if there is any and how do we know
and i'm talking gospels now, because really they are the only ones that count

Well just to come away from the Gospel’s slightly.. within the New Testament I think Paul’s Letters are mostly close to fact. The Gospels themselves, we can never be 100% but where something is mentioned several times across all four, either with exactly the same quotes or even better ever so slightly different quotes, just because I think if Matthew and Mark for example have Jesus saying the same thing, with just slightly different words, that gives authenticity that they’re not just copying each other.

If something is just in John but not in any of the others, we cannot know it’s not true but it makes it less likely. It’s why scholars will never say he did say this or that, they’ll just claim what is more likely and what is less likely.

It’s never going to be black and white and it’s a lot of grey.

 

[Marklr]

Well just to come away from the Gospel’s slightly.. within the New Testament I think Paul’s Letters are mostly close to fact. The Gospels themselves, we can never be 100% but where something is mentioned several times across all four, either with exactly the same quotes or even better ever so slightly different quotes, just because I think if Matthew and Mark for example have Jesus saying the same thing, with just slightly different words, that gives authenticity that they’re not just copying each other.

If something is just in John but not in any of the others, we cannot know it’s not true but it makes it less likely. It’s why scholars will never say he did say this or that, they’ll just claim what is more likely and what is less likely.

It’s never going to be black and white and it’s a lot of grey.

"It’s never going to be black and white and it’s a lot of grey."
Which makes the whole book useless. If people can't understand this god's word, or they lead to debates and confusion, then it's a crap god. Any intelligent god would have made their message clear for all to understand. No all powerful, all knowing god would allow such a confused book to represent them.

 

[tonea2003]

Well just to come away from the Gospel’s slightly.. within the New Testament I think Paul’s Letters are mostly close to fact. The Gospels themselves, we can never be 100% but where something is mentioned several times across all four, either with exactly the same quotes or even better ever so slightly different quotes, just because I think if Matthew and Mark for example have Jesus saying the same thing, with just slightly different words, that gives authenticity that they’re not just copying each other.

If something is just in John but not in any of the others, we cannot know it’s not true but it makes it less likely. It’s why scholars will never say he did say this or that, they’ll just claim what is more likely and what is less likely.

It’s never going to be black and white and it’s a lot of grey.

It’s my belief the other 3 are copying mark for their own reasons( the crowd they were writing for)
And you know Matthew reproduces 90% of mark whilst correcting His errors
Luke not so much but at leat half Is the estimate
John is a different kettle fish as it’s nothing like the others no parables/claiming to god etc
And anyway they have been altered over time allegedly so who knows what is true

 

[Two Gun Bob]

It’s like Hitchens, who was a comedian as far as I’m concerned, he just picks the odd line, takes it out of context of the whole passage, makes up his own definition and uses hyperbole to attack a straw man.

On a personal level I think you do the man an injustice.

Christopher Hitchens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does God exist?

Willaim Craig v Hitchens. full debate. Its 2.5 hours long but an excellent introduction into that age old question.

 

[Octavian]

"It’s never going to be black and white and it’s a lot of grey."
Which makes the whole book useless. If people can't understand this god's word, or they lead to debates and confusion, then it's a crap god. Any intelligent god would have made their message clear for all to understand. No all powerful, all knowing god would allow such a confused book to represent them.

The book has been a major part of different civilisations across the world, sometimes shaping them. It’s the most important book in the world.

From a historical perspective it’s not reliable for historical fact but if you were a God wanting to bring people back to you, then the message is surely the most important. All 4 gospels tell you to put your faith in Jesus and that’s clear so the gospels have done their job.

There’s a reason there’s been more Christian’s than any other people on earth for over a 1000 years and it’s because the book does it’s job.

 

[Octavian]

It’s my belief the other 3 are copying mark for their own reasons( the crowd they were writing for)
And you know Matthew reproduces 90% of mark whilst correcting His errors
Luke not so much but at leat half Is the estimate
John is a different kettle fish as it’s nothing like the others no parables/claiming to god etc
And anyway they have been altered over time allegedly so who knows what is true

Matthew and Luke both copied Mark but then they also share a lot of scripture with one another that’s not in Mark, hence Q being the source(s) spoken about in scholarly. Matthew is clearly writing to convince the Jewish to follow Jesus so his has a big slant.

I think it’s clear there were lots of previous sources spread right across the area and scripture well before it was collated in the gospels.

I don’t think Matthew and Luke are inventing stuff for their own gain.

 

[tonea2003]

Matthew and Luke both copied Mark but then they also share a lot of scripture with one another that’s not in Mark, hence Q being the source(s) spoken about in scholarly. Matthew is clearly writing to convince the Jewish to follow Jesus so his has a big slant.

I think it’s clear there were lots of previous sources spread right across the area and scripture well before it was collated in the gospels.

I don’t think Matthew and Luke are inventing stuff for their own gain.

No I think they are writing for their intended audience
Lots of Roman and pagan gods to dispel