Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Schumikonen

Be Really Scared He'll Be Back.

Recommended Posts

Just to avoid repeating myself, I am again posting the views from the non-religious historians (is that the correct word for a guy that studies history?)

According to them, the gospels order went like this:

1) Mark: His gospel is the shortest and the one that sounds more "authentic". No mention of Betlehem, no three magi, just an adult Jesus from Nazareth with a very consistent story. It seems to be written in a rather unpolished greek, almost as if the author wrote in greek but thinks in aramaic.

2) Matthew: Matthew seems to take some things from Mark, and also add some things of his own. Matthew writes like a lectured jewish scholar with deep knowledge of the OT prophecies. Thus, his mention of Betlehem (the place where David's descendant should be born, etc.) This seems to cause some inconsistencies, like The whole christmas story and the three magi and the fact that Jesus was always known as Jesus from Nazareth, not from Betlehem.

3) Luke: It is perhaps contemporary to Matthew's, or perhaps written a few years later. His gospel seems to be entirely directed at non jewish christians which were starting to overpower the original group of jewish christians.

4) John: probably the last one as some verses seems to hint at some extended prosecution of Christians. Probably written between 70-100 A.D. It has a deep gnostic influence (its mentions of the Logos and many elements of gnostic philosohpy). Is the less "historical" of the gospels and seems more like a metaphysical writing.

I want you to picture this... There are 4 corners to a central point, at each of these corners stands Mark, Matthew, Luke and John looking in to the central point.... Each one describes the events AS THEY SEE IT, FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, thats why some of the "irregularaties" occur.... nothing is falsified.... it's as simple as that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want you to picture this... There are 4 corners to a central point, at each of these corners stands Mark, Matthew, Luke and John looking in to the central point.... Each one describes the events AS THEY SEE IT, FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, thats why some of the "irregularaties" occur.... nothing is falsified.... it's as simple as that....

Here is why we got thoses different points of view, Luke never met Jesus, he worte what he heard form Jesus's mother, Luke was a doctor and he focused more on the healing part of Jesus ministry. I have to add to this that Jesus's mother did not was with Jesus every moment of his life on earth, she missed a lot of things.

Mark was a kid when Jesus was on earth, he was there when Jesus did some miracles and he focuses his gospel on thoses miracles of Jesus.

Matthew was an apostle he was there with Jesus, he heard and saw from almost first line what happened in Jesus life, he was a tax collector, hated by people, Jesus was criticised for talking to people like him, Jesus chose him as apostle, Jesus did not see what man sees and Mathew was touched for that kind of Jesus' behavior and he focused his gospel in that part of Jesus preaching, in how to treat people, forguiveness, patience, love...

John was the closer one to Jesus, he was there with Jesus listening, learning, watching, he was called "the loved disciple", loved by Jesus, and he learned the importance of faith, of believing, the word "believe" is used at lot more by John than any other writer in the NT, John was the ony apostle who stood at the foot of the cross when Jesus died, the rest were hidden.

From thoses Gospels only one tried to write everything in a chronological order, that was Luke, the others only try to document what from their point of view it was more important, that is nothing wierd, when we go to see a movie or any other event, at the end when we talk about it we noticed that everyone of us has a different point of view for the events as an example I give the film "Basic Instict" when I fisrt saw I was sure that the killer was the Psychologist, when I saw by second time I changed my mind and I thought it was Sharon stone, just to make sure I saw it a third time and the I realized that there were a lot of killers in that movie and thoses people were killed by different killers, I still don't know if I am correct about this film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want you to picture this... There are 4 corners to a central point, at each of these corners stands Mark, Matthew, Luke and John looking in to the central point.... Each one describes the events AS THEY SEE IT, FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW, thats why some of the "irregularaties" occur.... nothing is falsified.... it's as simple as that....

Nobody says they were falsified. Well, Mathew's gospel arises the most suspicions as his explanations seem always too confusing for somebody that does not accept religion. I do agree that the four Gospels were accounts from each one from his own point of view. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I was replying to Abbas about the books being written by Jesus, and explaining exactly that: that they were written by 4 different persons with different points of view.

To make my point of view more clear about all this: I do believe that Jesus (a mortal man) existed. You have many books in the bible that seem fictional literature (the book of Ruth, for example). Many are filled with anachronisms (mixing facts from one empire with another from an empire that did not exist at the time, for example) or are strangely devoid of details of the geography or history that should be well known to them. Nothing of that happens with the Gospels. Everything they describe about the geography, politics and history of Jesus times are correct, compared with non religious books of the same era. Even if I don't accept the divine nature of Jesus, or the accounts of miracles, there still lies a story about a very credible man in a very credible background. Pilatus, Herodes, etc...we have many stories about them from contemporary sources. There is archeological evidence of their existence (Herodes Temple, for example).

My approach is entirely historical. I do not advocate for my atheism, though. This is just what I feel that makes sense to me. I am just explaining my points of view and I have no interest in convincing religious people about my views. Just want religious people to acknolwedge my right to think this way. So far, you all did so and I am greatly thankful for it! :D

And yes, BMan, we are all talking about the Bible. Whether religious or not, nobody can remain indifferent to all this. It's great to be able for all of us to explain our points of view with mutual respect. I am thoroughly enjoying the experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes, BMan, we are all talking about the Bible. Whether religious or not, nobody can remain indifferent to all this. It's great to be able for all of us to explain our points of view with mutual respect. I am thoroughly enjoying the experience!

I agree with you and I am also enjoy the experience, as I have been in both sides I am able to understand both point of views and believe me if I tell you that I would do a better from the atheist side, there are things that are just impossible to explain from the christian side, I guess that it all God's purpuose for this to be like this, so we have to use faith to get there, I think he made thoses things imposible to explain because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...