There are many comments and takes I would like to respond to, but it would get too tangled.
In person, we could speak freely with no constraints.
In this kind of on-line forum, we are limited.
Each reply leads to a new question, new objection, new tangent, new
"Yeah, but what about..."
But I've seen what has been posted.
I do want to reply to 88, however, since we began a dialogue.
And also to what Mgo and Scott posted about.
88 wrote:You do realize that none of the four aforementioned biographies of Jesus (now collectively called the Gospels of...) was written by their namesake, and certainly not during the time when Jesus Christ would have been alive. In truth, no one knows for certain when any of them were written. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel Furthermore, they are very inconsistent in their descriptions of the life and times of Mr. Christ. They are anything but historically reliable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit ... al_Gospels And Paul was mostly a rival and outcast to the "apostles" who survived Jesus. His letters attempt to persuade his supporters to buy into an entirely different program than Jesus was selling before he got croaked.
Since you are a conservative lawyer who respects the Constitution, I will put this in a way that might hit home with you.
Maybe. lol
We've seen the way, in our modern time, liberals (who
say they believe in the Constitution) have butchered it.
They have undercut liberty with their butchering.
Very similarly, modern liberal theologians (who
say they believe in Christ) have steadily sought to undercut The Liber
ator.
They have sought (wittingly or not) to diminish Christ, diminish the necessity of Christ, and diminish the Bible itself.
One such way they have sought to do this is by saying, as you spoke of, that the Gospels were not
really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I very much disagree with their assertion.
Evidence and common sense says the Gospels were in fact written by those four men.
And there are many reasons why I say that -- but won't go into them unless asked to explain further, due to "forum" constraints I noted earlier.
Matthew - written by Matthew, one of the 12 apostles
Mark - written by Mark, a friend of Peter, who was one of the 12 apostles
Luke - written by Luke, a physician and friend of Paul
John - written by John, one of the 12 apostles
The Gospels surely were "booked" decades after Jesus died and resurrected.
This is true.
There are very logical and understandable reasons why (imo) it went this way - and I again won't pursue explaining it further unless asked to do so.
Further, it is logical (and perhaps a surety?) that some written accounts of Jesus' life and Ministry (parts of it) were occurring
as He was living, and in the years following His death and resurrection -- but they were not put into one "book" account until later, when the four writers did their separate work.
Contradictions in the Gospels?
Long story short, no.
In fact, they are
remarkably consistent.
One can go through and find minor
surface differences in accounts given, but I promise you that any differences found can easily be reconciled by simply considering that each account was written by a different author who had his own view of what went down.
Each Gospel author gave his account in the way he did because he saw some things as more "important" to note than others, or because they made an impression on him, or because it is what HE saw at that particular time and place, or because he was trying to relay the account to a PARTICULAR AUDIENCE -- as authors have always done.
Matthew, for example, was clearly writing his account with the Jews as his audience.
Mark, Luke, and John also had a target audience in mind.
The vital points of the life, deeds, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ were relayed
consistently by each independent man.
For Mgo and Scott...
First, the fact that we don't think an omnipotent God is operating as He ought to ---> does not necessarily mean that He does not exit.
Second, back in the day, your scenario(s) is one I was very curious about, also.
God's method didn't appear correct to my sensibilities, either.
Understand (if you might try and play along with what I am relaying) that God is perfect, holy, and
incapable of sin.
He is perfect Light.
We humans are something much different.
We are corrupt, and the sensibilities we have don't come close to approaching those of God.
Not even in the same realm.
We are the ones who are fucked, trust me.
What we might imagine God should be doing, is, to put it bluntly... foolish.
We don't come anywhere near approaching His level of understanding.
How did we become this way, disconnected from a natural understanding of God -- and disconnect from His way of "thinking," such that we imagine that the Almighty God is not acting...
right?
If you care to know how I think that happened, pick a thread or two that I started in the theology forum.
Read the opening post.
Think about the message that is given there and think about it in relation to your own life.
But know that Jesus responded to your point(s) in this thread.
If you sincerely want to know the answer to your question(s), carefully read Matthew 20:1-16.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv ... te=4380943
Jesus responded to your concern in a parable.
And He spoke other parables.
He said that some could not (would not) understand what He was saying (Matthew 10:10-13).
If you've read Matthew 20:1-16, and you don't
get it, I say with all sincerity, love, and humility, you should seriously consider where it is you are standing, and who it is you are standing
with.
