Who Wrote The Gospels?

[headinhands]

"Matthew contains 606 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke."

A good diagram here

Shipping that is why I refer to spirit. A spiritual entity is non physical, it does not exist in the classic sense as it does not consist of physical matter.

However it can exist within a group of people, possibly other living matter. Animals communicate with other, so do plants.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827864.600-fungal-threads-are-the-internet-of-the-plant-world.html

caps - but that NS article is about stuff which physically exists and can be shown to exist.

And of course communication exists in many forms, but it works because it is executed by an organism, and is picked up by the physical equipment of another organism. 'Communication' isn't a separate entity in itself.

None of this is proof that deities exist.

Would you consider, for example, the English language to be a spiritual entity? It has an aural and written form, so aspects of it are non-physical if you want to think of it like that. But would you worship it, consider it to be capable of bestowing eternal life, sending you to hell if you dared to speak French or Chinese instead of English?

No it is not proof. However we live in a world full of living organisms, which can communicate with each other. We have analysed some communications.

Spirits are believed to work through living physical matter. In the Bible Jesus describes His words as spirit. In John, Jesus is talked about being the physical manifestation of God's word. God is described as speaking the world into existence.

In formalist literary theory books are described as living. What is written can affect us physically, we interact with it and relate it to our own experiences. A book's meaning can evolve over time and be individual to each reader. Our language is described as living, as usage changes and evolves over time.

Some people are described as having heightened senses and pick up on environmental changes in plants and animals, horse whisperers etc.

So I can easily see how spirit could work through all that is living and affect people.

X post. Yes I think language is closely linked with spirit. I worship God, through Christ. Christ was described as the physical manifestation of God's word. God's word made flesh.

I don't single out a particular language. We speak many languages, as they do in the Bible.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

"In formalist literary theory books are described as living. What is written can affect us physically, we interact with it and relate it to our own experiences."

Again, yes, absolutely. But there is no proof that what is written is divine, rather than written by people.

If what you are saying is that god is some sort of metaphor for collective experience through the ages, then I can agree with you. But I can't agree that god is a separate entity that somehow 'started the world', 'lives in heaven', and can send you to hell.

Shipping But you must see at least, the connection between how the way language works with beliefs concerning spirit(s).

Are you royal BigDorrit, or part of a hive mind? Who are 'we'?

I think your understanding of what spirit means may be lacking BigDorrit.

capsium I don't know how to put this tactfully and still get it across.

This stuff about the spiritural realm being real because you can say the 'spirit of the law' is childish nonsense and you know better. It was funny once, but you can't keep doing it, not if you expect to have an adult conversation.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit?show=0&t=1398369855

It is interesting how the primary definition of spirit is described as

"an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms"

And how we see language as a defining aspect of intelligent sentient life. It was how we saw ourselves as being distinct from plants and animals, the defining aspect of our language being believed to be grammar, as opposed to the 'simple' communications of animals that did not have grammar. However discovery of the Piraha people blew that theory.

Spirit is seen as the vital principle which gives life. It seems all life has some form of language. Biosemiotics studies this communication across life forms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics

Dismiss me as childish if you like Back, but I assure you I am fully grown and I do know something about language, amongst other things.

The belief in spirits exists as a belief. This is enough for that belief to manifest physically, that is physical affect the living environment. Patterns of thinking can change people physiologically. Spirit (existing through/in terms of belief) manifesting physically, changing us physiologically.

www.psmag.com/magazines/magazine-feature-story-magazines/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

www.psmag.com/magazines/magazine-feature-story-magazines/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677-fear-of-a-smell-can-be-passed-down-several-generations.html

Sorry the second link should have been this one.

It only explains why some people think they may.

So you'd admit there are explanations, possible evidence, for people's beliefs. Why do you dismiss these explanations so readily?

BigDorrit how do you determine whose perception is correct? When perception, along with the supporting physiology, varies between societies and individuals?