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

anwersingenesis- oh yes a very reliable source. "Young earthers" they also run the creationis museum. Great source. I have read many issues of their Creationist magazine- I had a subscription ( bought as a gift for me) a laugh a minute. Who would have though that Satan lived inside those readio carbon dating machines to falsify results and make those poor scientists believe the world was more than a few thousand years old. Its' as well we have these organsations to open our eyes to the works of the devil.

Personally I find rabbitrisen's posts refreshingly honest and clear. I'd go as far as to put rabbitrisen in charge of R.E for all faith schools in the UK as I think this would usher in a new era of religious understanding.

Certainly after a few weeks everyone would have a greater understanding of what religion is.

Thank you BackOnlyBriefly.

If eating meat only happens because of our fallen, evil nature why did Jesus promote eating meat in some of his miracles?

niminy you have no good reason to call anyone else's beliefs barking. Yours (and most other Christian's) are purposefully packaged in a thin veil of reason but they're all equally as groundless at the end of it.

BigDorrit, where did you find that picture about how the bible came about? I am teaching ks2 about the bible; it looked as if it might be interesting, but I couldn't get it large enough to read or find it on google!

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

More seriously, do you really stand behind the statement that beliefs like those of rabbitrisen's are "completely barking and stupidly, preposterously wrong."

I don't see how any religious person can draw a line and say that other religious people are beyond it. It's easy for atheists because the line we draw is simple and perfectly consistent. If there's no reason (not even slight) to think something is true then we don't. We just wait and see.

How does it work for a Christian? You get together in groups and eat bits of a 2,000 year old murder victim, conjured into existence by some guy who mumbles magical requests to an invisible guy who you believe is there because the mumbling guy told you so.

You believe the invisible guy made people with wings and demons that can take people over and a chief demon that is at war with the main invisible guy.

But.. what was the sticking point again? Was it the claim that Lucifer invented weeds or was it something else?

And also with you, Backonlybriefly. I'm able to distinguish between the dogmatism and wilful ignorance of internet atheists and the rigorous and deeply challenging atheist philosophy of Nietszche. Indeed, when I want to engage with something that offers a real challenge to Christianity, I would rather read Beyond Good and Evil.

I do think rabbitrisen is wrong; as I have said many times that kind of biblical literalism that wilfully ignores many decades of scholarship (by Christians) about the composition of the Bible, and many hundreds of years of hermeneutics, is stupid and wrong.

Christian thought is a wide spectrum. I know that you, headinhands and others prefer to engage with the most dogmatic of fundamentalists, because these represent the brand of Christianity that you are most easily able to brand as irrational, anti-science and ludicrously credulous. You don't want to engage with other kinds of Christian thought, instead insisting that it is all, at bottom, marked by the unthinking fideism that you prefer to lampoon. You want to say that what I believe is not 'real' Christianity. It's your right to do so, of course we're on the internet after all, where all sorts of idiocy have free rein. It isn't true, of course, but as long as you continue to claim that only the most dogmatic of biblical literalists represent real Christianity you can continue to impute beliefs to me that I patently do not hold and to continue to refuse to listen to what I really do believe.

I think you have to be very careful though niminy, not to become too elitist in you outlook. Jesus is for 'whosoever will' believe on Him, not just the educated or theologians.

Whilst I agree an overly literal approach does not seem appropriate, as language is symbolic, right down to the etymology of our words, if Christianity was left to the elite, the Bible would never have been translated in to the language of the common people.

Equally a childlike (literal) Faith should be nurtured. There should be common ground between Christians, in our beliefs.

Regarding Good and Evil, apart from believing on Christ, I feel much is down to context. Good is apparent when there is peace and harmony between living creatures. However from our human perspectives, it is difficult to ascertain what is the correct action for every context, only God has the vantage point to know everything about everything, He was there at the beginning and the end, knows the past and the future.

...although I am with you niminy in that atheists seem to love to jump on the beliefs which seem most incongruous to our modern lives!

...and that the majority of Christians find they can reconcile their Christian beliefs into the modern, educated, world, that is Christianity is still very relevant.

I think it is important to recognise Christians are all people, with all our fallibilities, as well as Christians.

I would say, capsium that when I was a child I thought as a child, and simple childlike faith is all very well, but that faith is developed and tested by thought and study. I do agree there should be common ground between Christians, but on the other hand that should not blind us to real differences either.

True, niminy.

wilfully ignores many decades of scholarship

If decades of scholarship are what's required why are there Christians with extensive study that are very literal in their interpretation and then Christians that are liberal with no schooling? Why couldn't god have got someone to write a book for the OT that explained what bits were literal/metaphor/not as violent as they appear and so on?

Which is why we sent missionaries to the third world and not the other way around. We went to better schools (and wore more civilised clothes) so we must have better beliefs. Because no one can come to Jesus without a good education.

I expect he said as much, though I can't recall quite where. I vaguely recall something about needing "to be as little children" though he may have meant "Believe what you are told without question"

And wasn't there a bit about how the Pharisees must be right "Because you are simple fisherman, so what would you know?"

By what mechanism did you determine that what another Christian believes is 'barking'? I'm guessing it's one that could be swiftly used on any groundless belief.

Just to note, though, that the research about the sources and composition of the gospels in the blog that you linked to was all done by Christians -- and is in fact taught as unproblematically mainstream by most theological education in this country.

BigDorrit you misinterpret me. I do believe there is truth regardless of belief.

However I also believe what people believe can be / become truth for them, as I believes beliefs can physically manifest, that is affect the physical world. Hence I talk about biological diversity linked to cultural beliefs.

BigDorrit but you will refuse to acknowledge what I am saying in terms of the wider definition of the word spirit.

In pieces of writing, authors often state working definitions of the terms they are using, in order to clarify what they are talking about. Professionals do the same, with terms of their professional language. If the audience refuses to accept their working definition, at least for the sake of considering an argument, consideration ends there.

I use the world spirit because there is no other, which encompasses the phenomenon I am describing.

The way I use the word spirit fits with the way it is used in the Bible, the etymology of the word and it's full dictionary definition. When reading old texts, the original meaning of words is important, in order to understand what was meant by the text, at the time of writing.

^..word spirit not world. Typo

I think you have to think in terms of the functionality of the words when you are considering their meaning...what the phenomenon does functionally.

The ironic thing is, if I was just able to describe the phenomenon, without using any religious terminology, people would probably find the belief more palatable...

But, as Shakespeare said,

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."