And you can say this how? and by what autority

It isn't the words she worships.

Kat

I need authority to commend one's faith?

Where did you feel the difference was made... within you...

Ahhh, the house was clean... an empty house is clean...

You have no authority to tell me what words to worship. If I choose to worship the Bible's words...that is my choice. Not yours!!!!!

I have explained this to many in many threads....I am the way I am because of my own circumstances. The Lord himself spoke to me on many occasions and I could no longer deny HIM....and no I live my life for Him and only Him......And yes I will get a little angry when anyone says My Lord and Savior is not real, His Father is not real, and the Bible which I know to be the word of God is not real......thats when I will fight....not because I have to.....Because I know I don't....for the people who are really searching that is why I am here.....thats is why I am led to these forums and that is why I will stay until he says otherwise.

Ok then...

Worship whatever you choose dear...



feral - 2

creative - 0

John was James's brother. They were twins.

It couldn't be John the Baptist - he was dead.




Which is not nearly as extreme as the audiences in which each of the gospels was intended, as well as their purpose.

I get the sense that you are under the impression that each gospel was written with the intention of being read by a single unified audience. Is this so, or am I misconstruing your point?

Though there may be vast differences between each gospel - the message of all four is quite obvious, and quite clear. Is there anyone confused over the gospel message that Jesus was God incarnate who came down to walk amoungst men, died on the cross - taking on the sins of man, and was resurrected on the third day? Whether or not one believes this to be true is not an indication that they are confused over what the gospels claim. That never seems to be in doubt, just the validity of it. So what is the point about the differences in the wording of the gospels?



But "hearsay" comes under the catagory of subjectivity. Everything is "hearsay" to someone. How do we know Lincoln was assasinated? We put our trust in the reliability of those who recorded the account. And there were far less people to witness that event than there were the Crucifixion. Yet every child in the United States is taught that the Lincoln assisination is true. You would flunk your History class if you thought otherwise. So why are the accounts of the 1800's accepted as truth, and those of 30 A.D. - Hearsay?

So the fact of the matter is - one believes what one wishes. If you are convinced that the writers of the gospels are not who History claims them to be - or what is "indicated" in the texts themselves, then there's is nothing substancial that I can suggest to you to offer proof that your belief is wrong. However - conversely - there's nothing to indicate that I should question the validity of the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, or James - and whoever wrote Hebrews. Since it logically follows that these accounts were written as a testimony of God the Son (since that's what they claim to be) I would think that I would have to have some pretty solid, clear and logical evidence to convince me that these men were not above suspicion. I know of no such evidence. I know the conjectures, but they fall woefully short of convincing me that these men perpetrated the greatest hoax in history.

Eljay:

Your post asks multitude of questions... I will address one portion at a time for clarity...


>>>>>>> Who the witnessing disciple actually is cannot be known for sure, there are several possibilities which reason out. If it were John the apostle and he, in fact, wrote all of the book of John, he surely chose a narratively curious way to describe the events surrounding the crucifixion. John the baptist was indeed reported to be previously beheaded at the time. This we understood, however earlier it had been mentioned. <<<<<<<




You stated:

" I get the sense that you are under the impression that each gospel was written with the intention of being read by a single unified audience. Is this so, or am I misconstruing your point? "

>>>>>>> No, I understand that each apostle needed to be able to effectively relate whatever the situation of the audience was in regards to their own situation. This does explain some of the contextual differences. It does not explain the synoptic value of the similarities. Some of which are word for word. <<<<<<<



You stated:

" Though there may be vast differences between each gospel - the message of all four is quite obvious, and quite clear. Is there anyone confused over the gospel message that Jesus was God incarnate who came down to walk amoungst men, died on the cross - taking on the sins of man, and was resurrected on the third day? Whether or not one believes this to be true is not an indication that they are confused over what the gospels claim. That never seems to be in doubt, just the validity of it. So what is the point about the differences in the wording of the gospels?


>>>>>>> Eljay, the authenticity of these gospels were in question throughout the period of Apostolic Fathers by others such as Dionysius, and those who followed the gnostics teachings.

Some 140 years after the death of Christ, Irenaeus decided that there should only be four gospels, as a result of his own assertation... citing four winds, four pillars, etc. etc.

He decided this largely based upon Papias' who Irenaeus had referred to often. Papias did not claim to be a disciple of the elders. Irenaeus based which gospels were worthy by the means of an uneducated man's word of mouth. We have no writings of Papias. <<<<<<<


You stated:

How do we know Lincoln was assasinated? We put our trust in the reliability of those who recorded the account. And there were far less people to witness that event than there were the Crucifixion. Yet every child in the United States is taught that the Lincoln assisination is true. You would flunk your History class if you thought otherwise. So why are the accounts of the 1800's accepted as truth, and those of 30 A.D. - Hearsay?

>>>>>>> Eljay, think about that.

What purpose would changing the account of the assassination of Lincoln serve? The documention methods were far less questionable. There is no substantial reason to question it.

The gospel account, however, is fundamental to Christianity and it's acceptance at the time. What would have been more believable and embraced at the time? Jesus who taught the value of what was within you, which went against the common belief structure, or a blending of the writings with the most similarities to the OT?...<<<<<<<


In conclusion, I have never intentionally suggested that the crucifixion was a hoax. It is perfectly reasonable to say that throughout the process of the New Testament's compilation that there were things left out, because they did not 'fit' into another's assessment of 'ought'. If things were left out, an oral tradition was in effect, people who believed otherwise were executed... That alone demonstrates the circular logic surrounding it's compilation.

The original message has indeed survived without the judgemental properties of many who practice Chriatianity...

Whatever is contained within that breeds hate, bigotry, murder, unjust punishment... in my opinion those things are why the texts were selected and altered accordingly to match what had been previously accepted as the word of God...

Christianity made him the Old Testament's messiah... He taught differently...