Is the universe God?

[Simon Moon]

Matthew and John were both apostles and their gospels were written within their lifetimes. The other writers were close associates of witnesses. Mark was a companion of Peter, who also wrote two books proclaiming the resurected Christ. It doesn't matter what language they were written in. We read them in English or whatever language we speak. Since the new testament writings were not only addressed to the Jews it would have made sense to write in the prevailing language of the day which was Greek.

None of the Gospels claim to have been written by anyone in particular. They are anonymous.

Luke can be dismissed immediately because he states that he wasn't an eyewitness.

Matthew mentions Joseph's dreams. Does this seem plausible for someone that is an apostle of Jesus decades later? This a literary tool, not something that someone relaying an account of the life of someone he meets decades later would do.

How did the Gospel writers know what Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? Jesus was alone, right? The Disciples were asleep, right?

Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. There are too many instances of verbatim similarity. This kind of congruence (wording, sentence structure, etc.) does not come from independent eyewitness testimony or oral interviews

Mark and John differ so much, that they both can't be right.

Mark was a companion of Peter, who also wrote two books proclaiming the ressurected Christ.

There is no evidence that Mark and Peter traveled together. This is nothing more than later church tradition.

DeistPaladin is the expert on this stuff. Hopefully he'll chime in on this.

[Lek]

There are different opinions on when and by whom the gospels were written. The early church passed on the information and traditions verbally and it wasn't untill around 300AD that the church made the decision about what writings to include in the new testament. So it was a matter of the church deciding which books were inspired based on the already accepted doctrine handed down through the generations. Another criterian was who was determined to be the author. According to my understanding, a necessary factor was whether the person had known Christ directly or had direct access to those persons. What was written in those books was already accepted as prevailing belief and was taught before it was included in the canon of scripture.

Mathew and Luke did rely heavily on Mark for their gospels or they all relied on some othe common source. Obviously, they agreed with Mark and capitalized on his work or went to the same source Mark used. They were presenting the gospel to different audiences than Mark's and were relaying already written information.

As for the question in one post about how they could know what Jesus said in his moments alone -they're probably not word for renditions. Jesus could have told them during the 40 days he was with them after the resurrection.

As for the comment concerning my formatting - yes, it does suck.

[Sword of Christ]

The universe is just the universe it isn't God. It can contain and is contained by God but that doesn't mean it is God in itself that would pantheism. If God and the universe are the same thing that's the same thing as God not existing.

[EvolutionKills]

[truthBtold]

Lek.. please READ A BOOK... u are soooo wrong.. stop being lazy and look for urself.. stop listen to people who dont know shit..evolution and sword are telling the truth

[Sword of Christ]

Close, but not quite. If god and the universe are the same, it's not the same as god not existing. If god is the universe, and the universe exists; then clearly god exists. However this just makes god irrelevant, because he's no longer the anthropocentric, interventionist, voyeuristic, judgemental, genocidal sky-daddy.

It would just be a technical difference in terminology if you're just calling the universe something else. But God generally implies an intelligence and purposeful nature, in the case of the Biblical God you have the basis of good and evil and the supreme eternal justice system as well the Moral Law as it's known and the eternal Creator of all time and space and matter. In Christianity you don't have to worry about God judging you as your sins have been forgiven preemptively through Christs death on the cross and his resurrection to the fullness of life and all that business. Once you accept this gift of salvation the idea is you won't feel the need to sin or do evil so it works in reverse to the traditional Works based faith.

[EvolutionKills]

Close, but not quite. If god and the universe are the same, it's not the same as god not existing. If god is the universe, and the universe exists; then clearly god exists. However this just makes god irrelevant, because he's no longer the anthropocentric, interventionist, voyeuristic, judgemental, genocidal sky-daddy.

It would just be a technical difference in terminology if you're just calling the universe something else. But God generally implies an intelligence and purposeful nature, in the case of the Biblical God you have the basis of good and evil and the supreme eternal justice system as well the Moral Law as it's known and the eternal Creator of all time and space and matter. In Christianity you don't have to worry about God judging you as your sins have been forgiven preemptively through Christs death on the cross and his resurrection to the fullness of life and all that business. Once you accept this gift of salvation the idea is you won't feel the need to sin or do evil so it works in reverse to the traditional Works based faith.

Of course at this point I'd have to point out that any supposedly supreme being who thought that the best recourse for his own mistakes was the drown the entire world with a magical flood, has absolutely no fucking moral ground to judge anyone; ever.

Also, why didn't accepting salvation stop the numerous wars and genocides precipitated by Christians? If you're saved, and that removes your desire to sin, what's with all the killing?

[Sword of Christ]

Of course at this point I'd have to point out that any supposedly supreme being who thought that the best recourse for his own mistakes was the drown the entire world with a magical flood, has absolutely no fucking moral ground to judge anyone; ever.

In the fleshed story the human race had been degenerated by interbreeding with fallen angels at that point and the creation as a whole was in a state of general decay the only way to purge them was to wipe the slate clean and start a fresh. It's largely a myth that was based on the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh which may have been based on a real event. There's an interesting book on the subject that has recently been published.



But it's probably best to see it as a parable for inner spiritual struggle against sin and reconciliation with God and that kind of thing.

Also, why didn't accepting salvation stop the numerous wars and genocides precipitated by Christians?

You can put that down to the flawed nature of humanity and sin but these wars will have been largely political in nature even the Crusades. Christianity began life as a persecuted minority of pacifists who revered an executed humble Galilean carpenter as the living embodiment of God not with a great leader of vast armies.

If you're saved, and that removes your desire to sin, what's with all the killing?

If you mean Christians such as Anders Breivik they aren't really interested in what Jesus said or did they just have an extension of their own ego and attach the God label to it.

[EvolutionKills]

If you're saved, and that removes your desire to sin, what's with all the killing?

If you mean Christians such as Anders Breivik they aren't really interested in what Jesus said or did they just have an extension of their own ego and attach the God label to it.

Oh, so close but unable to land the dismount. No True Scotsman Fallacy...

[Whateverist]

Recognizing that god may be the entire universe is generally the penultimate step before recognizing we don't need both words.