Here is a possible explanation for why there are four different gospels:

http://www.christiandoctrinediscussion.c...spels.html

Oh....and he was doing so well until he got to the SECOND SENTENCE!!!!

Quote:Some of the differences are so great that the gospels almost seem to contradict each other.

They DO contradict each other. There is no "seem" about it.

[quote='Minimalist' pid='101889' dateline='1288205211']
A passage from Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" in which he begins to point out some of the many errors or contradictions in the fundies' so-called inerrant bible.

[quote] ... And once these students open the floodgates by admitting there might be mistakes in the Bible, their understanding of Scripture takes a radical turn. The more they read the text carefully and intensely, the more mistakes they find, and they begin to see that in fact the Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren’t any, even when they are staring you in the face. [/quote]

This book is on my reading list. Gotta get through "War and Peace" first. Shew. And this portion of the quote pretty well explains how it all happened for me:

"What's that you say? There's contradictions in the Bible? Outright scientific and historical errors, you say? Bears killing children? Damn. Maybe I need to reconsider."

Quote:'Godschild' pid='102013' dateline='1288238917'


What makes you think that John had to place the event, cleansing the temple, at a certain place in his writings. John's gospel is not one written to convey a straight line historical account. Only Luke's gospel tries in any way to tell a historical account and this was not his main intention. All four gospels were written as a wittness about Jesus and the order of the events are not that important, the spiritual truth is the great importance of the gospels.

You don't have "witness" actually occurring within the Gospels. Witness infers that you have report from an observer and that is not the case with the Gospels. One can't even state that the Gospels are based on hearsay as you would have to prove that the story was passed from to another. All that one has with the Gospel are writings of four unique individuals.

I always laugh my ass off when xtians harp about their alleged "eye-witnesses." Every cop knows how unreliable eye witness testimony is. Most people are as observant as a load of bread.

Nonetheless, none of these gospels even claims to be written by an eye-witness which...were it not for the blindness of xtians....would pretty much put the issue to bed.

(December 2, 2010 at 1:48 am)Minimalist Wrote: I always laugh my ass off when xtians harp about their alleged "eye-witnesses." Every cop knows how unreliable eye witness testimony is. Most people are as observant as a load of bread.

Nonetheless, none of these gospels even claims to be written by an eye-witness which...were it not for the blindness of xtians....would pretty much put the issue to bed.

Actually, Luke claims to have written his gospel based on eyewitmess accounts. II Peter is not considered a Gospel, but Peter admits he was an eyewitness.

(December 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm)everythingafter Wrote: This book is on my reading list. Gotta get through "War and Peace" first. Shew. And this portion of the quote pretty well explains how it all happened for me:

"What's that you say? There's contradictions in the Bible? Outright scientific and historical errors, you say? Bears killing children? Damn. Maybe I need to reconsider."

Not to mention talking snakes, donkeys, people eating cakes laced with human dung, fire coming down from the skies, a herd of pigs falling into a lake, etc

You are missing out on a lot of enjoyable bits, just read the book of revelation (it should take you only an hour).

Quote:Actually, Luke claims to have written his gospel based on eyewitmess accounts.

In a court of law that is called HEARSAY.

"Peter" was so fucking stupid that even the church dismissed it from the NT. You have enough trouble without giant talking crosses.


Try again.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Actually, Luke claims to have written his gospel based on eyewitmess accounts.

In a court of law that is called HEARSAY.

"Peter" was so fucking stupid that even the church dismissed it from the NT. You have enough trouble without giant talking crosses.


Try again.

Dude, you really need a hug. Do you eat with that filthy mouth?

Anyway...what giant talking crosses are you talking about?

Absolutely. What I don't do with it is waste time praying to your sick fantasies of a god.


So apparently you've never read the so-called gospel of Peter.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/05/gosp...cross.html

Quote:And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'