Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Saintheart, think about this.

Say you go to see a movie with three friends. All four of you are seeing the same movie. When you walk out of that theater, are all four of you going to mention exactly the same details about the movie? I would wager not. You might have your own observations, your friend would have a different set of observations that differ in some of the small details, etc. But when all four sets of observations are put together, someone would get a clearer sense of the big picture.

That should be considered here. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all focused on different aspects of Jesus' life, ministry, and death. But when all four accounts are taken together as a whole, a surprising amount of harmony would be seen as regards the larger picture that would, I believe, point to all four Gospels as being divinely inspired writing. Picking apart the smaller details, as timmoishere seems so fond of doing, is not necessarily the point. The point is looking carefully at the larger picture. Once someone is doing that, the smaller details would likely fall into place through some careful study.

 

That analogy fails, because it is highly likely that none of the eponymous authors of the gospels even met Jesus.

 

What if they did?

Anyway, that's not the point.

 

Well, it kinda is. If you and your friends go see a movie, you can each talk about your shared experiences. However, let's say your friends all go see the movie but you decide to stay home. When the movie's over, they come home and tell you about it. You think "hmm, that's interesting," but you never actually go see the movie yourself. Then, twenty years later, you decide to write a book about that movie, using just the testimonials of your friends who saw it, never knowing if you (or they) remembered the details right.

Now that sounds closer to the gospels, doesn't it?

 

Actually, I've got to argue with you on that one because I think it's a common misconception. Current scholarship is pretty confident with dating the gospels pre 70 CE, as well as much of the NT, which would make it very conceivable that those who wrote it (whether eponymous or not) were either in contact with Jesus at some point, or were in contact with people who were in contact with Jesus. The thinking is that the destruction of the Temple by the Romans had such a large effect on the Jewish community that if the gospels had been written after it happened, that would be apparent (there would be some mention, some stress put on other themes, etc.) since the NT was written entirely by Jews.

That said, yeah the people they're named after probably didn't write them.

Faberwacky, Sainthead said what I was going to say in response to your post. So you can just respond to his points and I'll jump in again.

 

That's an interesting point, Prenntecost. I had always heard that only Mark could be dated to circa 70 CE, while the others were certainly later, especially John. I'd be interested in hearing more about this scholarly shift.

 

I live in Falwell Town Virginia(Lyncbhurg), and the Falwells rented out every theatre at our Reagal Cinema to show "SON OF GOD," for opening Night.

JESUS JESUS JESUS

If I was man enough I'd go up to the school and piss on the enternal flame.

 

well since this is the christian thread and since i want to prove to everybody how christian i am, i thought i'd let you all know that a christian blog posted one of my op-eds today!

http://www.redletterchristians.org/confessions-arizona-discriminator/

 

There's a reason there are 4 Gospels. They connect the 2 backbones of the Bible, just like adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine connect the sugar-phosphate backbones of DNA. DNA is a book, and it matches perfectly with the Bible.

 

Really? I lived there from 2008 to 2012 when I went to college. Small world.

 

In that town, it's probably still a flat world.

 

Actually, there are lots of gospels. It's just that four of them happened to make the editorial cut somewhere in the 4th century. I don't think it has anything to do with DNA.

 

That's where you're wrong. There are 4, which is a number that corresponds with the spiritual world that God exists in. There are many counterfeits, sure, penned by the Devil to water down the truth, but there are four Gospels.

 

Don't know bout that but they've got a dinosaur bone dated from the time of Noah's ark.

 

Wait, so is Anakin Solo Anarchist saying that the Bible is made entirely out of Jesus's DNA? Ew

 

"What am I, chopped liver?" - U nucleotide.

 

It's Revanchist. And yes, figuratively. John 1:1 and 1 John 5:7 both indicate this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

Oh, really? I was just making a joke, obviously. What kind of dinosaur is it and what's their time for the Flood at this point? Still like 6000 years ago?

 

The flood was 4400 years ago, approximately.

 

"What am I, chopped liver?" - Sargon of Akkad

 

"You better think about putting some pants on if you wanna keep preaching to the crowds today." ~ Saint Peter

 

They have some nice fossils in the hallway, a nice model of the Ark too. The official university standard is the usual 6000 year creation and flood stuff. That said when it comes to students, I'd wager about 90% of the guys in my hall and dorm still hold that evolution has more evidence and and older earth makes more sense. When it comes to the professors too your more than likely going to get one of them to admit the same.

 

Them Catholics with their Dagon hats.

 

What's so devilish about the apocryphal gospels? Most aren't even heretical. They just didn't quite have whatever spark the NT's editors were looking for.