Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Mudhammam]

But what follows?

That the above necessitates being historical skeptics?

Bravo. You're catching on. You might be surprised to learn that much of history is written from one perspective of many. Often times what is revealed in the historical record is only the particular viewpoint that came to dominate... which of course, Christianity eventually did, though not by merit of its claims, but by the rule of law and the power of the Roman state.

[Really?]

Discipulus

Have you ever considered that the oldest gospel (mark) is written by a person who is extremely unfamiliar with Jewish traditions and religious thought? Luke and Mathew take great pains to make corrections so that there versions of the synoptic gospels at least show a Jesus who was aware of basic Judaic ten nenes of faith.

These corrections are indeed for the target audience because otherwise they would have been dismissed outright as the works of novices.

2) does the fact that the ending to mark was added after later works make you doubt other parts of the bible?

3) John's gospel is the one with the most miracles. It also does not follow the core outline of the other three gospels. It earliest date in completed form is from the 200s. Without johns gospel the historical Jesus never says he is difinitively the messiah. How do you reconcile john to the synoptic gospels?

4) most of the New Testament is letters by Paul. Pauline Never met any other apostles. His letters predate the gospels by several decades. However Pauline Christianity never says that Jesus was a man who lived on earth. In fact Paul's letters point to a totally spiritual salvation and he never places the action in the kingdom of Judah. Knowing this how do you reconcile Paul as even part of the same religion as peterite Christianity? But without Paul the New Testament is devoid of much of its philosophical power?

Just curious

[Bucky Ball]

I see them traveling from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to Nazareth. Maybe the author of Matthew's Gospel confused Egypt with Jerusalem? Or maybe he just constructed that whole Egypt scene to give the illusion of "fulfilled prophecy" that fit the pattern of his theological narrative?

Matthew was writing to Christians who had been Jews. Luke is writing predominately to gentile Christians and specifically, to a man named Theophilus.

Matthew does not record certain aspects of Jesus' early life while Luke does. This is because they are each writing to different audiences.

The Matthew account you reference takes place approximately two years after Jesus was born.

That's right. Most people assume Matthew is writing about a newborn Jesus like Luke is but this is incorrect. The Matthew account takes place well after the account Luke gives of His circumcision and presentation in the temple. Matthew mentions nothing about Jesus' circumcision or presentation in the temple because the Jews did not need to be told this, they already knew this was the custom whereas gentile Christians would not have been familiar with these intrinsically Jewish customs and therefore Luke includes them.

Matthew records the visit of the Magi (most people think the Magi came to visit Jesus while He was lying in a manger. This is a common misconception and is not true), Luke of the shepherds and angels. Matthew records the slaughter of the children, Luke does not. Why? Matthew includes it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Luke does not mention the prophecy because it was Jewish specific and thus there is no reason to mention the slaughter of the children.

Luke contains a more detailed account of the baby Jesus because his style is more chronological and systematic while Matthew's is more geared toward recording Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Both gospel writers however sum up their coverage by stating that Jesus and His mother and Joseph eventually returned to Nazareth.

When taking the two together, we have a clearer picture of what was going on as opposed to what we would have if only one gospel writer had recorded what was going on.

No gospel writer "recorded" anything. The gospels are statements of belief for believers to use in liturgies reminding believers what they already believed. There were hundreds of gospels,. Most were "suppressed", many for very questionable reasons. The gospels are in no way "history".

[Jacob(smooth)]

Also, purple is not red.

Just sayin'.

I'm afraid the idea that discrepancies make it more accurate smacks of a two headed penny to me. Exactly the same? It's because it's divinely inspired. Different? Proves its accurate. Heads win, tails you lose.

[discipulus]

Also, purple is not red.

Just sayin'.

I'm afraid the idea that discrepancies make it more accurate smacks of a two headed penny to me. Exactly the same? It's because it's divinely inspired. Different? Proves its accurate. Heads win, tails you lose.

Seek to live a life of love and self-denial. Always giving and never expecting anything in return. Love your enemies, do good to them who spitefully use you. Treat others the way you want to be treated in all things. You do not need to read the gospels to know that this is the right way to live.

[Mudhammam]

Also, purple is not red.

Just sayin'.

I'm afraid the idea that discrepancies make it more accurate smacks of a two headed penny to me. Exactly the same? It's because it's divinely inspired. Different? Proves its accurate. Heads win, tails you lose.

Seek to live a life of love and self-denial. Always giving and never expecting anything in return. Love your enemies, do good to them who spitefully use you. Treat others the way you want to be treated in all things. You do not need to read the gospels to know that this is the right way to live.

Exactly. Being a good Christian, ironically, involves nothing that is especially Christian.

[*Deidre*]

The trouble with Christianity and other religions also, is that love of the Deity comes first. So, if said Deity tells you to shun homosexuals "out of love" for them, you follow that "command" as a dutiful Christian. Love of fellow man, comes in the form of a lot of twisted rhetoric. If you believe the Bible story, Jesus explicitly said, "Love God with all if your heart and your neighbor as yourself."

The irony is without doing the second, a Christian fails at the first. But, at the end of the day, love and worship of the Deity comes first. Since 77% of Americans classify themselves in some way as Christians, I wonder why we still see so much poverty?

Christians (most not all) talk a good game but their actions are that of self absorbed people who if they do good, it is because they want to please their Deity of choice. Mainly, because they're more concerned with an after life than this one.

[Tonus]

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" works so long as the other party does the same. "Do good to those who spitefully use you" simply rewards them for harming you. Otherwise they rely on faith in a force that can balance out results according to merit (although that creates its own issues for those who believe that we cannot earn anything on merit with god).

"Do not harm those who do you no harm" or "do good to those who deserve it" is a much better ideal to start from, in that it allows us freedom to help those we choose and is more likely to lead to helping those who deserve it while avoiding those whose actions harm us. It also frees us from feeling guilty over things like thought-crime by prioritizing behavior and outcomes.

[Bad Writer]

Also, purple is not red.

Just sayin'.

I'm afraid the idea that discrepancies make it more accurate smacks of a two headed penny to me. Exactly the same? It's because it's divinely inspired. Different? Proves its accurate. Heads win, tails you lose.

Seek to live a life of love and self-denial. Always giving and never expecting anything in return. Love your enemies, do good to them who spitefully use you. Treat others the way you want to be treated in all things. You do not need to read the gospels to know that this is the right way to live.

Nice non-answer. Is this all we can expect from you from now on? If so, then you've officially gone from being a waste of everyone's time to not worth the petty words you spew out. If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to directly address what they say to you. Circumventing the points we raise will turn people against you. Is that what you're going for here?

[*Deidre*]

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" works so long as the other party does the same. "Do good to those who spitefully use you" simply rewards them for harming you. Otherwise they rely on faith in a force that can balance out results according to merit (although that creates its own issues for those who believe that we cannot earn anything on merit with god).

"Do not harm those who do you no harm" or "do good to those who deserve it" is a much better ideal to start from, in that it allows us freedom to help those we choose and is more likely to lead to helping those who deserve it while avoiding those whose actions harm us. It also frees us from feeling guilty over things like thought-crime by prioritizing behavior and outcomes.

''Give what you get,'' is a pretty minimalist way to live, though. I think that if I'm only kind to those who are kind to me, what might that say about me? I do agree however, that I don't bother with people anymore who are not kind to me. But, I try to take a 'leap of faith' no pun,and give them the benefit of the doubt, until they show me that they can't be trusted, etc...THEN, I turn my back.

It is liberating to live this way, now. Enabling people's bad behaviors is really what Christianity breeds, sadly. How many times do women stay in abusive marriages because they are Christian? They are taught to 'turn the other cheek' and forgive over and over. But, the other person isn't changing. So, yea. Use good judgement is probably the best approach in life, to dealing with all people.