Why Four Gospels?

With palms together,
Good afternoon KFC,

Thank you for posting this most interesting introduction to your scriptures. I have read these gospels. I enjoy St. Matthew in particular. Some few years ago, probably about 30 or so, I took a wonderful class on the life and teachings of Jesus taught by a terrific professor who was, incidentally, a Southern Baptist, but still a very bright and open man. I also took a class on the New Testament and a few other dablings in Christian theology. The courses and especially the class interaction were most challenging. These were taught in a small southern private college so I was often considered a foriegner. But that was fine with me. Anyway, I found the synoptics of great interest, not only morally, but especially in light of the fundamentalist belief that these are the literal word of God and are absolutely true, down to each dot and dash, were there any.

As I lived in this southern Baptist town, filled with the spirit, as it were, I was enlightened by the townfolks distrust of outsiders, their dislike of people who were poor, of color, and who didn't speak english with a southern slant. I learned alot there.

Now Matthew has a lot of wonderful things to say. I feel a close affinity to Jesus as he is portrayed in the text. I wonder why so many Christians have such difficulty with his message, say in the Sermon on the Mount? Not long ago I read Tolsoy's work on a similar theme, he seemed to have a lot of trouble with the Church and its use of the gospels, as well as its reluctance to behave more Jesus-like.

I agree with you, more people should actually read these texts. I would hope they would follow the teachings of this man. Perhaps we might stop killing each other, embrace our enemies, feed the poor, treat whores and prostitutes as the human beings they are.

I disagree with you on many levels howeever. I do not think the gospels really portray a picture of the actual Jesus, but rather a picture of who the Church needed in order to create and maintain their religion. As I mentioned in another thread, I am currently reading, though slowly, a book about Paul and how he essentially created and formed the early Church. If Jesus were here today, I really believe he would be appalled by the things done in his name, the distortion of his teaching and the greed of the church itself. Moreover, I think our contemporary theologians would have him driven out of town on a rail.

Anyway, thank you again for this post. I look forward to reading the many responses you will have.

Be well.

I found the synoptics of great interest, not only morally, but especially in light of the fundamentalist belief that these are the literal word of God and are absolutely true, down to each dot and dash, were there any.

I agree with this but only in the original language in which they were penned. I believe God breathed out these words to the Apostles that wrote them. It also makes more sense than anything else I've ever read, and I do read a ton!!

I wonder why so many Christians have such difficulty with his message, say in the Sermon on the Mount?

I don't understand what you mean here? What difficulty?

As I mentioned in another thread, I am currently reading, though slowly, a book about Paul and how he essentially created and formed the early Church.

but this is based on opinion. Why would you believe this over the written scripture that will still be the best seller while you and I are dead and buried. While the naysayers have come and gone the word of God endures.......exactly like it said it would.

If Jesus were here today, I really believe he would be appalled by the things done in his name, the distortion of his teaching and the greed of the church itself. Moreover, I think our contemporary theologians would have him driven out of town on a rail.

I absolutely agree with you here. While I'm in agreement with SB theology for the most part I don't look to man in forming my beliefs. I base man made religions on how they line up with scripture. I believve the SB along with a few others are still preaching the word of God as it is written. But we are also losing many mainstream religions out there that are no longer preaching/teaching that of the historic Christian church.

BTW....Adrian Rogers who is the best known SB preacher of modern times is my absolutely favorite guy... Link

Anyway, thank you again for this post. I look forward to reading the many responses you will have

you're welcome....... but I'm not too sure I'll get alot of responses.

you're welcome....... but I'm not too sure I'll get alot of responses.

It seems you are right on...What do we have to do to light the fire?

The gospel of Matthew is of interest to me as it contains the Sermon on the Mount. I have often thought of this as a marvelous teaching, yet one so many struggle to live out. Any thoughts on this? (I wish I were at my monastery, I miss my library terribly.) I confess not having a copy of that scripture of yours in hand to review.



Be well

Hey nice picture.

I think the reason this isn't getting many hits is because its something you either have done (read them) or have not done.

Oh and its nice outside.....hahaha.

Funny Sodaiho but this is exactly how I pictured you in my mind. Weird.

I will get back to you on the Sermon on the MT. Anything specific? If not I'll give you some random thoughts. But is that all you like about Matthew's gospel or all that you can remember?

I confess not having a copy of that scripture of yours in hand to review.

Hey, what ails ya? JK. Well you know it's not a hard book to find out there. God has made quite sure it's readily available. So no one is going to have to say they didn't have a chance.

I think the reason this isn't getting many hits is because its something you either have done (read them) or have not done

maybe. I was thinking it was because it had more fact than opinion and it would be hard to refute.

Oh and its nice outside.....hahaha.

well maybe for you it is......are you bragging or complaining? For me it's gray and drizzly but heard a rumor the sun is coming our way. Hoooooray!!

The Gospels were written to the four general groups of people in the first century. Matthew was written for the Jews; Mark for the Romans; Luke for the other Gentiles; and John for Christians.

Someone explained it to me exactly this way and I was sure I was gonna comment saying you missed this point, lol! Darn it, you got me here

There are some things I know I don't like. I recall Jesus speaks rather harshly of others, especially Pharisees and the priests. I find it out of character for this man of peace and good will. He calls them vipers or snakes or something. What might be the point of such name calling and anger?

I also recall the piece about turning the other cheek as being interesting in light of the fact so many seem to be so eager not to follow this advice today. And to not kill. And to give away your coat. In my faith, generosity is also considered a "paramita" or "excellence" or "perfection" a gate through which enlightenment may be attained. This generosity should be given without respect to self and without thought as to the recipient's deservingness. We don't quibble about the difference between murder and killing as some do regards the decalogue. We accept some killing must take place, beings do live off of each other, but we see the deliberate causing of harm to be an offense against the sacral nature of the universe.

When we see a hungry person, ought we not feed him? Or a person needing a coat, should we not clothe him?

Be well.

I was thinking it was because it had more fact than opinion and it would be hard to refute.

I guess at some point people make a conscious decision...either its true and I choose to believe it, or its a not and I choose not to believe it.

The reason I said the weather is nice...I find the warmer and sunnier it is outside (though it rained all day yesterday) the less research or opinionation (my word, like it?) I wanna do....

I think most know not to come to your blog and comment without knowing what they believe and why.

Good article, KFC, well-written.

How do you date the Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels? There is a body of evidence that the Gospels, ALL the Gospels, were not written until the 2nd Century. I include both the four Gospels that you reference and the larger body of the discounted Gnostic Gospels. The word "Gospel" was not in common use until this time.

There is no reference to the Gospels as written texts until the 3rd century, even among discussions among the Christian hierarchy. You don't find works like the Sinope Gospels until the 6th century.

If this dating is accurate, then the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but rather formalizations of stories told and retold. After the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, four works were selected and became the orthodox Gospels. The remainder of the Gospels were discounted and those that believed in them, the Gnostics, persecuted. We know, for example, that the Albigensian or Cathar Crusade in the 13th Century was directed against believers of alternative Gospels.

Some links:
The Gospels Link

The Gnostic Gospels Link

The Albigensian Crusade Link

There are some things I know I don't like. I recall Jesus speaks rather harshly of others, especially Pharisees and the priests. I find it out of character for this man of peace and good will. He calls them vipers or snakes or something. What might be the point of such name calling and anger?

Jesus knows what's in the hearts of all men. He knew those in authority were leading the people away from God not to God. He knew of the abuse of power and how these priests who were suppose to represent God were doing anything but. Do you remember the anger Christ had at the temple during feasttime when the moneychangers were at the temple? Well they were cheating and charging the people exhorbitant amounts of money and using the proceeds to fill their pockets. Sounds like today huh? It's ok to be angry as long as you're angry at the right things. Anger against sin is ok. I'm afraid today we're not angry over sin like we used to be. We have been very desensitized.

Actually it was John the Baptist who called the Phariblinds vipers (Matt & Luke 3:7). Remember the Pharisees were the most influential of the Jewish sects at that time. They did all the "right things" supposedly but were hypocritical, self righteous and the foremost persecuters of Jesus. We read in scripture of their murderous plot not only against Jesus but also against Lazarus (get rid of the evidence). No Jesus did not break his rules in His anger over them. They represented their father, the evil one.

As for killing? There is a difference between killing and murder.

When we see a hungry person, ought we not feed him? Or a person needing a coat, should we not clothe him?

Absolutely, when we do so, we do for HIM he says. Did you read my first blog article? Link

I think most know not to come to your blog and comment without knowing what they believe and why

Well That's good. I want people to know WHY they believe what they do. Many go along with what they've heard along the way without really do the research for themselves.

How do you date the Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels? There is a body of evidence that the Gospels, ALL the Gospels, were not written until the 2nd Century. I include both the four Gospels that you reference and the larger body of the discounted Gnostic Gospels. The word "Gospel" was not in common use until this time.

Well it's been widely accepted that the four gospels were eyewittness accounts and the others were written later nearer the second century. Both Luke and John in their gospels acknowledge these are the accounts of eyewittnesses. Also the reliability and integrity of these four speak for themselves in comparison to the others.

We also have the early church fathers such as Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis writing about 140AD From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD referred the Gospel of Mark as the "memoirs of Peter." Ireneaus writing about 185 AD called "Mark the discipler and interpreter of Peter"

The cannonicity and the author of Matthew were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (c.a. 265-339) quotes Origen (185-254) "Among the four gospels which are the only indisputable ones in the church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew who was once a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism." Ecclesiastical History

The overwhelming evidence supports the fact that the first four gospels were eyewittness accounts while the others were written well after Jesus walked the earth. If you take the time to read them, you'll even see they do not even read the same. I

Remember the Pharisees were the most influential of the Jewish sects at that time. They did all the "right things" supposedly but were hypocritical, self righteous and the foremost persecuters of Jesus. We read in scripture of their murderous plot not only against Jesus but also against Lazarus (get rid of the evidence). No Jesus did not break his rules in His anger over them. They represented their father, the evil one.

I'm sure that this is unfair to the Pharisees. After all, Nicodemus was one of their number. And as to the 'persecutors' of Jesus, while it is likely that some would indeed have been hostile to him, others would have been intrigued and wanted to test his wisdom to see if he had something worth listening to. Hence all the scriptural stories of asking Jesus difficult questions, which in fundamentalist christianity gets a horrible anti-semitic spin in which they are only interested in 'tripping him up'.

Actually in Luke 3:7, John the Baptist is castigating "the crowds who came out to be baptized by him", not specifically the Pharisees.

One thing you may not have thought enough about is the horrible centuries-old history of Christians practicising anti-semitism, and just where it came from. In reality the Pharisees must have been like every other religious movement that there's ever been - including your own - a mixture of the sincere and the opportunistic, the zealous and the lukewarm, the kind and the cruel, and the wise and the foolish.

In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which may well be eye-witness accounts, or written fairly soon after, I am only aware of a single uncomplimentary reference to "the Jews" and that's in Matthew's Gospel where it is claimed that the Chief Priests bribed the Roman soldiers to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen his body while they slept and that this "story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day".

On the other hand, the writer(s) of the much-later Gospel of John, who cannot have been a Jew, refers to "the Jews" 71 times (compared to 5 times in Matthew, 6 times in Mark and 5 times in Luke) and most of what he has to say is highly uncomplimentary to say the least! This is probably explained by the desire to mark out a clear difference from the faith that the early christians had broken away from; by the time 'John' was writing, most Christians would have been of gentile origin.

Many Jews today see a direct line of influence from John's anti-semitism to the horrors of the holocaust. I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view.

Do you remember the anger Christ had at the temple during feasttime when the moneychangers were at the temple? Well they were cheating and charging the people exhorbitant amounts of money and using the proceeds to fill their pockets. Sounds like today huh? It's ok to be angry as long as you're angry at the right things. Anger against sin is ok. I'm afraid today we're not angry over sin like we used to be. We have been very desensitized.

With palms together,

Hello KFC, The notion of moneychangers seems to have gotten a bad rep in Christianity and this story has been used historically to support anti-semitic thought. There is no evidence I am aware of that temple functionariers were cheating or any other such thing. I do not hold that anger is OK regardless of the cause. I believwe and have seen in action something the Buddha taught 2600 years ago, anger begats anger. My sense is that portrayals of an angry God or an angry Jesus are motivated more by the needs of the authors than of God or Jesus themselves. I am not angry over sin, but rather the forces that create the need for sin. I see sin as a human response to great suffering, albeit a mistaken and/or disguided and misdirected response. We should not allow ourselves to become angry, rather we should use the energy of anger to do more constructive things in the world.

This spin on the story that the Jewish authorities at the time were somehow in cahoots with the Adversary against God is hogwash and cause for a great deal of suffering through history.

Lets look at this in another way.

Jesus, the story goes, is here to redeem man. To do so he must live as a man and die on the cross. Its the redemptive motiff that is at the crux. There problem is in the staging. Just as with God and the Egyptians during Exodus or God and Job. We have God creating a theatre upon which he manipulates and tortures and kills human beings in order to either make a point or look good. For Jesus to die for our sins somebody had to kill him. For God to look good to the Jews coming out of Egypt he had to 'harden the hearts' of the Egyptians, trounce them several times over and over again each time He hardened their hearts, then He kills them all in the Red sea. Frankly I don't believe any of it. I believe God is a universal who has no ill will period. Ill will is what we add to the picture in order to make it interesting or to prove a point.

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God. Doesn't get angry, preaches and practices deep compassion and lovingkindness for friend and foe alike.

In both cases human beings have written the stories, the biographies, if you will. And the culture's values are found in the stories themselves. Peace, non-violence, livingkindness, eradication of self centeredness, on the one hand., a very jeolous God who is wrathful and spiteful, on the other hand. Neither story sets are the truth, as it were. They each tell more about the story-teller than anything else.

I guess where I am right now is in a place where I do not want nor do I need a wrathful God, a God to fear. I want a kind and loving model of compassion and love.


Be well.

Actually in Luke 3:7, John the Baptist is castigating "the crowds who came out to be baptized by him", not specifically the Pharisees

ah, but you did not include Matt 3:7 which says: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Yes they were "the crowds" but it was the pharisees he directed his comments to.

I didn't think you were as the others Chak, picking and choosing but I can see clearly by what you wrote you are doing just that. Picking that which makes your point but leaving anything out that doesn't quite jive with it.

BTW I am not anti-semetic by any stretch. I agree that passages from scripture have been taken to promote this, but that's because the people who have done so are ignorant of the WHOLE of scripture and just use what they want to further an agenda. I am not convinced by opinion, heresay or agendas. I am after truth and have been seeking this for quite some time. I would give to anyone who would use scripture to further anti-semitism the following verse from Acts to shut them up:

The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against your holy child Jesus, whom you have anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. For to do whatsoever your hand and your counsel determined before to be done. Acts 4:26-28.

First notice this was a prayer from Peter and John. Notice that the events were predetermined. Also notice who are found guilty. ALL from all walks. We all are guilty because it was our sin that put him there in the first place.

Also do you remember that it was Jesus "who gave up his spirit?" He had said earlier to the disciples that he gave his life freely no one was to take it from him. If you remember, he would disappear all the time when they were ready to lay hands on him but "it was not His time" yet.

In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which may well be eye-witness accounts, or written fairly soon after, I am only aware of a single uncomplimentary reference to "the Jews"

Then here's some HW for you...just the tip of the iceburg. Matt 23:23-36. Notice these words.....hypocrites, blind guides, extortion, white washed sepulchres on the outside, dead man's bones on the inside, unrighteousness, murderers, serpents, vipers.

Or how about Mark 7:1-23? Luke 11:37-54? or how about Matt 26:59-60 which states: "Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. But found none: yes though many false witnesses came (not credible) yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses.
I spent two years studying the book of John and I was amazed at the Judicial Tyranny that went on at his arrest and trial. They broke many biblical commands as well as Roman laws to get him to the cross. These fine priests were not the goody two shoes you make them out to be. Jesus called them the sons of the devil. They followed their father he said.

I find it interesting that you dish John in his eyewitness testimony when it comes to his take on the "Jews" but use the story of Nicodemus (which is in John 3) for your advantage. Did you not notice that Nick came under cover of darkness to speak to Jesus? Why do you suppose? Not in broad daylight? When he dared speak up in a council meeting later look what happened...John 7.50-52. No.... Nick did not come out fully until after the death of Jesus when he became instrumental in taking down the body. See he was one that didn't follow the others. He listened to the words. That's what I'm doing Chak.

Again, you have to know the truth so you can spot the lies, and I can see that you are not familiar with the truth here.

Again one does not have to be anti-semetic to believe the bible and what it says. The Jews in scripture were a chosen people for a special purpose. Unlike many others out there, I do not think he's done with them yet. They are still here for a reason. Scripture is quite plain that he is going to turn back to them when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in. And I believe that will be soon.

by the time 'John' was writing, most Christians would have been of gentile origin.

yes, I guess I would agree here. Acts was written in the 60's and John in the 90's. When we read of the early church we see Jewish believers in the first 8 chapters of Acts coming in by the thousands.; 3000 in one day and later 5000 but by the time John wrote it had spread quickly to the Gentiles as well.

This spin on the story that the Jewish authorities at the time were somehow in cahoots with the Adversary against God is hogwash and cause for a great deal of suffering through history.

well that's what history records. If you don't like it you can re-write it...heck everyone else is. Go for it. You'll fit right in.

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God. Doesn't get angry, preaches and practices deep compassion and lovingkindness for friend and foe alike.

then you just keep following Buddah. but don't say you were not warned. Paul said this: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.

So I guess it depends on who do you wanna believe? First thing I did was investigate Jesus. Is he who he really said He was. Was he God? Was he a nutcase? Was he a liar? That's where I think it all starts. What do you do with Jesus?

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God

But Jesus did. Was he not? That's what we all have to investigate for ourselves. What has Buddah done for you? Did he save you? Did he die for you? Did he wipe away your sins? Does he reserve a place for you in eternity?

I guess where I am right now is in a place where I do not want nor do I need a wrathful God, a God to fear. I want a kind and loving model of compassion and love

nobody wants a wrathful God. The fear of God is one of healthy respect not dread. Sort of like a small child fears his father with love and adoration all mixed up with it. It's putting our father whether human or God in his rightful place.

I believe we do have that model in Jesus. He came as a lamb to the slaughter not opening his mouth and he laid down his life for his sheep.

But don't be fooled. He has another side. While the first time he came as a meek little lamb the second time he will return the Lion of Judah. Whether we like it or not. Whether we accept it or not.

Be really well Sodaiho

well that's what history records. If you don't like it you can re-write it...heck everyone else is. Go for it. You'll fit right in.

Hello KFC, Not so, history records very little about the historical Jesus. No need to re-write it. The New Testament is not a historical record it is church propoganda.

then you just keep following Buddah. but don't say you were not warned. Paul said this: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.

Paul was, well, a person who wished to convert. Hardly a reliable source. Buddhist practice skills us in giving up "our own lusts." It is Paul who talks in fables in order to establish his church.

So I guess it depends on who do you wanna believe? First thing I did was investigate Jesus. Is he who he really said He was. Was he God? Was he a nutcase? Was he a liar? That's where I think it all starts. What do you do with Jesus?

I don't want to believe anything, belief is a false God in itself. I did 'investigate' Jesus as you suggest, many years ago, and found him to be wanting in a big way. I believe he was a zealot, a nutcase in a time of great turmoil where everyone and his brother thought they were the Messiah. I for sure do not believe he was God, that would be blasphemy according to the Scripture. I don't think he lied, but I do believe his story was used and abused in order to make a case for the establishment of a new religion. I don't do anything with Jesus nor would I wish to. I believe he was a blemished spiritual leader who had delusions of grandeur.

He didn't ome as any lamb. He needed to be crucified in order to meet the needs of his delusion.

The model of God you put forth is flawed and has served only to frighten young and old alike into some sort of fanciful belief in an infantile formula for salvation. Salvation is not a matter of uttering a few silly words. It is a matter of long hard work, many visits to the desert, many talks with the absolute, much pain and suffering.

But Jesus did. Was he not? That's what we all have to investigate for ourselves. What has Buddah done for you? Did he save you? Did he die for you? Did he wipe away your sins? Does he reserve a place for you in eternity?

As I understand it, Jesus did no such thing. He knew that would be blasphemy. Instead, I think he said something like, "Ye have said it" or other. Buddha has done alot, actually. With a long life and thousands of teachings he taught a method of seeking the truth, practicing good, avoiding evil, and caring deeply for all beings no matter how large or small, regardless of gender or class. The Buddha does not have the power to "save" however each of us to, as the Buddha taught. We are each already saved, KFC, it is the product of delusion to think otherwise. Sins? Goodness. There is no such thing as "original sin" None of us are born in sin. Each of us has the capcity to do harm or do good, the choice is ours. In that choice we bring evil or good into the world, it does not and never has existed separate from our behavior.

As for eternity, I'll have none of it. I am a Bodhisattva, here for eternity, to assist all beings (including you) in coming to complete, unexcelled, realization. It is my sacrifice for you.

Be well.

Paul was, well, a person who wished to convert. Hardly a reliable source. Buddhist practice skills us in giving up "our own lusts." It is Paul who talks in fables in order to establish his church.

he was hardly a "willingly" convert. He was murdering the Christians before he was "grabbed" by Christ so to speak. He never pointed to himself ever. It was always Christ he pointed to. He spoke of "Christ's church" not "Paul's church. He speaks of being beaten 5X with 40 lashes, beaten with rods, once he was stoned and left for dead, three times he was involved in a shipwreck even spending some time in the water doing so traveling to tell others about Christ. He was robbed, mocked by his own people and by people he didn't know. He was in danger for most of his ministry imprisioned many times evenutally beheaded by Nero.. No, I don't think this was something you seek out during those times. Who would choose this? No he was chosen by Christ. Look at the differences also in the disciples before and after the resurrection. A story in itself there.

As I understand it, Jesus did no such thing. He knew that would be blasphemy. Instead, I think he said something like, "Ye have said it" or other

No Jesus made it quite clear that he was not only sent by God, he was God. "When you see me you see the Father." "Before Abraham was......I AM."

The writings of the Jews hundreds and thousands of years beforehand were witnesses to this day. For all those prophecies to come true in one man is unbelieveable. There is a division over him now as there was then. You see in scripture many times it says they were divided over him. He proved himself. He said to try and test to see if what he said wasn't true. His works proved him, the scriptures also proved what he said was true. Just the fact we are discussing this now and the impact he's made two thousand years later says alot. Even our calendar is dated by this man. How can we say he was a nutcase or delusional?

As for eternity, I'll have none of it.

Well if you're right, neither one of us has lost a thing. If you're wrong and I'm right about this, then you have lost everything. That's why I say, at least investigate the claims made by this God-man. Not only have I investigated his claims I've had more than one encounter with him. I know he's alive as certainly as I do my family. Just because you have not met him does not mean he does not exist.

Picking that which makes your point but leaving anything out that doesn't quite jive with it.

I can see that you are not familiar with the truth here

There is some truth in what you say about picking and choosing, although you are gracious enough to say that it comes from 'ignorance of the truth' rather than any deceitfulness. If I am guilty of anything it is in wanting to see in the example of Jesus a paramount example of enlightened wisdom. As you show, however, my glowing image of a 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' has to face up to the clear examples in your scriptures where this religious leader, as Sodaiho says above, shows himself to be at times deluded and to have acted inappropriately and without genuine wisdom.

In one way this discussion has been useful in showing me that Christianity is actually stranger and odder than I had realised and that my attempts to fit it in with the perennial philosophy (the idea that all religions in their different culturally-defined ways show glimpses of the same truth) relies on an over-simplification. If the end result of this discussion is that I now feel more alienated than ever from your faith, that may not be ideal from your point of view of wishing to 'convert' me, but I am grateful for the intellectual clarity that it has brought me.

If you're wrong and I'm right about this, then you have lost everything.

One tip that may help you debate with us: threats of 'eternal damnation' for failing to see things your way, rather than terrifying us, convince us all the more that we are simply dealing with an immature spirituality in which all the resentments, anger and desire for revenge that dwell in human hearts are 'projected' in to the sky. Your scripture and your faith proclaim a god made in your "own image and likeness". I still believe that beyond all the human fantasies by which our religious imagination has tried to reach for the beyond (YWHW, Krishna, Allah, Maitreya, Zeus, Isis...) there is a Reality that transcends all of our anger, delusion and folly - impossible to 'understand', but which we can 'express' with every act of kindness, wisdom and self-giving that our wounded hearts can manage.

There is some truth in what you say about picking and choosing, although you are gracious enough to say that it comes from 'ignorance of the truth' rather than any deceitfulness

Well Chak, only you and God know that now huh? I try to give the benefit of the doubt and it's much more reasonable to me that you are more ignorant of the truth than being outright deceitful. So which is it....hmmmmm?

As you show, however, my glowing image of a 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' has to face up to the clear examples in your scriptures where this religious leader, as Sodaiho says above, shows himself to be at times deluded and to have acted inappropriately and without genuine wisdom.

where would this be?

In one way this discussion has been useful in showing me that Christianity is actually stranger and odder than I had realised

from the secular point of view this is very true. We are to be a peculiar people just as the Jews of the OT were told the same thing. God wanted us to stand out and apart from the rest of the world. In the OT to the Jews he said:

"For you are a holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people unto himself above all the nations that are upon the earth. Deut 14:2

Peter also said this to the Christians in 1 Peter 2:9. So Chak, you are so right here. Good insight.

Your scripture and your faith proclaim a god made in your "own image and likeness".

first of all, it's not MY scripture but all GOD"S Word and it's we who are made in HIS image and likeness so you've got this a bit backwards here. Guess who you've been listening to?

If the end result of this discussion is that I now feel more alienated than ever from your faith, that may not be ideal from your point of view of wishing to 'convert' me, but I am grateful for the intellectual clarity that it has brought me.

Please believe me if not anything else I say.....I am not out to convert anyone. That's not my job. Only God can convert not me. It happens by the power of the HS. I am not the HS by any stretch. I don't have this kind of power. I only say what I do to educate and inform those that have no clue what the word of God really says. If you feel further alienated than that's a decision you made. Don't blame me for that. I'm only delivering the message...I didn't make it up. Jesus did say he didn't come to unite but to divide and the division over him has been going on ever since. There is nothing new under the sun (SON). And you're welcome; anything to help.

I'd rather you be alinated like you say you are than to be a lukewarm so called Christian. I feel there's more hope for you than them. A nurse told me once that a totally dead heart is much better to revive than one that has been injured but not dead.

One tip that may help you debate with us: threats of 'eternal damnation' for failing to see things your way, rather than terrifying us, convince us all the more that we are simply dealing with an immature spirituality in which all the resentments, anger and desire for revenge that dwell in human hearts are 'projected' in to the sky.

Do you think that's what I'm doing? I did notice you took what I said out of context here to give this reply. Now this would be a deliberate thing here. I can see that.

KFC

PS. I'm going to send up a prayer for you today. Hope you don't mind!!

Guess who you've been listening to?

I can't guess, you'll have to tell me.

Do you think that's what I'm doing? I did notice you took what I said out of context here to give this reply. Now this would be a deliberate thing here. I can see that.

Absolutely not. Your whole argument rests ultimately on a foundation of believing that those of us who see spiritual matters differently to you are deceived by the 'Prince of Darkness', and maybe even carrying out his work, for which the only possible end point is the eternal lake of fire and brimstone. You're usually very upfront about this - (no one talks about Satan on this site more than you) - why so coy now?

Much as I like discussing these matters with you, there comes a point beyond which we cannot go. You believe what you believe because it is written in your scriptures, which you believe to be the literal and inerrant word of God. It is not something that can therefore be rationally debated, because - already possessing complete and absolute truth as written in your scripture - you have excused yourself from any obligation to provide meaningful proof of any kind, other than, of course, references to those very scriptures - a hopelessly circular argument.

When you talk about experiential reasons for your faith, i.e. what effect it has on the lives of those who share it, you are on much firmer ground, but even this does not constitute the proof that you think it does. Looked at sympathetically I can see that fundamentalist christianity can bring real joy to those who live it, but it also brings a fearful intellectual narrowing and, at times, a surprising hardness of heart. It is no coincidence that many of the harsher extreme right-wing conservatives in your country (and I'm not saying that conservatism itself is bad), share your religious philosophy.

I believe that our human lives are voyages of spiritual discovery, in which doubt has as important a part to play as faith, and in which, the moment we claim absolute certainty, (as all fundamentalists do) we lose our hold on the intellectual curiosity, self-deprecation and joie de vivre that make our lives so potentially rewarding and interesting. The secret that mystics (of all faiths) discover, and fundamentalists miss out on, is that in "not-knowing" our finite minds come closest to comprehending infinite mystery.

With palms together,

Hello Chak and KFC, as well as others who maY be reading through this thread.

I would like to ask a question or two about these books in the New Testament. First, why is the lineage so different in them as regards the geneology of Jesus? Second, what are people to make of Jesus himself? Here is a man who, according to KFC claims to be God coming from a faith that would clearly understand this sort of thing to be completely over the top, a man who gets angry and has temper tantrums, who sets up a disciple to be his betrayer, and yet is revered by so many. I find his words on charity and peace very helpful. I find his words on the value of forgiveness to be encouraging. Yet many churches tend to undermine his words. 'He didn't really mean that we should 'literally' turn the other cheek and get smacked again! ' I'm not so sure.

I have never really gotten straight answers from believers, perhaps they don't have any, perhaps they have not thought the questions through. But as I asked earlier, I think, how is it that Christianity can on the one hand say they believe in the inerrency of the text and on the other hand so freely change it and its meaning? The Sabbath is and always has been Saturday. God changed His mind? He said don't eat pork. God changed His mind? He said that we should not make graven images, yet there are crucifixes and the name of God written out all over the place. Again, I suppose God changed His mind. Perhaps He did. Perhaps not. I for one don't know, but I believe if I mess with one of God's laws I better have a thorough and consistent rationale for it or not believe in the literalness of the whole thing in the first place.

The whole thing is very confusing to me.

Sodaiho

First, why is the lineage so different in them as regards the geneology of Jesus?

If you look at these two accounts, one in Matt and the other in Luke, you'll see one is Mary's line and the other is of Joseph. You can see backing up to King David that one side came from Nathan (Mary), David's son and the other came from Solomon (Joseph) his other son. So Christ got his blood line from Mary (Nathan) and his kingly line from Joseph (Solomon).

Second, what are people to make of Jesus himself?

Jesus is 100% and 100% God. That question is a loaded one. It all comes down to what do we do with Jesus? Is he God or is he not? I believe our eternity lies in how we answer that question. I believe he was God in the flesh who came down to show us the way.

I have never really gotten straight answers from believers

Since when have I not given you a straight answer? I do my best and if I don't know the answer I find it.

how is it that Christianity can on the one hand say they believe in the inerrency of the text and on the other hand so freely change it and its meaning

God is the same, today, yesterday and forever. God does not change. He has a plan from the beginning and it's being played out exactly as planned.

The Sabbath is and always has been Saturday. God changed His mind?

No, the Sabbath is and will always be Saturday. People loosly call Sunday "their Sabbath" but you're right the Sabbath is only on saturday. But the Christians started worshipping on Sunday because that was the day that they celebrated the New Covenant, the resurection of Christ. The Old Covenant celebrated the Sabbath and was a celebration of Creation. The New Covenant brought the resurrection and Christ was our rest. There were many covenants in scripture and each one added to the prior one and was a better and better covenant.

He said don't eat pork. God changed His mind?

The OT did have strict dietary laws. Peter was told in the NT that all things now were acceptable to eat. It's kinda long to go into here but not only do I think that God knew that certain foods were harmful if not cooked properly so he had a prohibition of safety regarding such foods but I also think it's all tied in with the Gentile-Jewish thing as well. Just as it was ok to eat "gentile" food after the resurection, it was ok for these gentiles to come into the faith as well. They would be joint heirs in the kingdom. That was very tough to swallow for the Jews and Peter had to deal with this.

He said that we should not make graven images, yet there are crucifixes

Remember back then there were many deities worshipped via golden calf like images. God said to the Jews..."Don't be like them, be separate and holy." These images pointed away from Christ. I would not put a crucifix in the same category. It's not the substance but the spirit that matters. God isn't concerned with the externals but the internal. To a Christian, the cross is a reminder of the price paid for our sin and the abundant love that was poured out for us there. It points to God.

The whole thing is very confusing to me.

I can see that. But when you start looking closer and putting it all together like a puzzle you get a whole different perspective than the one you've had. I don't think you have your pieces out of the box yet and they are just a jumbled mess. That's what I like to do, help people put the pieces together.

Be really well

Your whole argument rests ultimately on a foundation of believing that those of us who see spiritual matters differently to you are deceived by the 'Prince of Darkness',

I actually agree with this statement and I believe you are very familiar with it as well. So this should be no surprise to you. I believe there is two spirits fighting for our souls. Spiritual warfare is very real and for those that don't believe in Satan (and I know that's a belief out there) Satan is very happy about that. He does his best work undercover. There are parts of the world that you can actually feel the evil in the air. I've heard many first hand accounts in Somolia and Brazil expecially. I believe that we see evil everyday all around us and I believe it's coming from spiritual sources.

You're usually very upfront about this - (no one talks about Satan on this site more than you)

well maybe that's because I think it's good to shed sunlight on evil. Usually when you do, those working underccover flee. Sort of like lifting a big rock and seeing all the bugs and rodents run for cover. Sunlight serves as a disenfectant. It's a good thing.

You can actually see this in the physical as well. I heard a story the other day about drug dealers working a park so bad that no one would dare visit this park with their children. It got really bad until someone put up speakers and started piping in Christian and classical music. They disappeared. it does work.

You believe what you believe because it is written in your scriptures, which you believe to be the literal and inerrant word of God

Yes, and I know you don't. But I'm only responding and discussing these things because you wish to and I as well enjoy a good debate. Just say it Chak....we're having lots of fun now aren't we?

you have excused yourself from any obligation to provide meaningful proof of any kind, other than, of course, references to those very scriptures - a hopelessly circular argument

I have? Well what do you want? I think we have enough proof out there outside of scripture. You can check Science, Archeology
History, first century writings of those who tried to disprove this man of God and while doing so actually helped bolster the faith. Many believe that DNA was the final nail in the coffin for the theory of evolution. It all points to a designer.

we lose our hold on the intellectual curiosity, self-deprecation and joie de vivre that make our lives so potentially rewarding and interesting

I've been there Chak and I'm telling you the joy of knowing Christ personally brings more joy and peace than anything else could ever come close to. Jesus said "I came to give life and give it more abundantly." It's so true. I wish I could prove it but I can't prove that because it's internal, but I do believe if you look closely at lives affected by this man you will get the proof you need. There is something they have that the rest of the world doesn't have. Find those that are the closest to Jesus and you will see him yourself in them. It's more than just following a man or a belief. He's actually dwelling in us.

I could write books on what God has done in my life and the experiences I've had along the way. I gave you one already on another blogsite. Now multiply that by hundreds of times that Christ has made himself known to me, my family and those close to me who also call themselves Christians. We all have stories to tell similar to Paul and others of the Book on how Christ reached down and grabbed us while we were dead to sin. He breathed life into us and we were revived. Being "born again" is an apt description.

I believe that our human lives are voyages of spiritual discovery,

where and what do you base your opinions and thoughts like this on? If not the word of God as I do then what? What is your foundation?

where and what do you base your opinions and thoughts like this on? If not the word of God as I do then what? What is your foundation?

With palms together,
Forgive my buttinsky here,Chak,

This is a foundational question upon which everything revolves, KFC. It is my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of millions of other seekers throughout millenia, that the only foundation possible is touching the Infinite itself. This is why all seekers leave home, figuratively or literally, in order to touch the Infinite, we must get out of our clothes, our comfort zone, so to speak. We go up a mountain, out into a desert, or retreat into a cave. There, alone, we meet ourselves and the Infinate face to face. In my opinion, arrarently the opinion of the major figures in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the New Testament, in the opinion of the Buddha and his myriad followers down to myself, it is not only essential, but necessary to do this in order to be authentic. Merely casting eyes on a text, understanding a text, devouring a text, embracing a text, believing in the text and all that the text points to is nothing if it does not include an experience of awakening, as well.

And in such experience is the authority. Once there, all other things are merely fingers pointing to the moon and are better left behind.

Be well.

If you look at these two accounts, one in Matt and the other in Luke, you'll see one is Mary's line and the other is of Joseph. You can see backing up to King David that one side came from Nathan (Mary), David's son and the other came from Solomon (Joseph) his other son. So Christ got his blood line from Mary (Nathan) and his kingly line from Joseph (Solomon).

But I was under the impression that Jesus was immaculately conceived, therefor not in the lineage of either. Besides, Hebrew lineage derives through the mother and the mother only.

Since when have I not given you a straight answer? I do my best and if I don't know the answer I find it.

True enough. I was referring to the mass of folks I have asked these questions of. Vague answers at best.

No, the Sabbath is and will always be Saturday. People loosly call Sunday "their Sabbath" but you're right the Sabbath is only on saturday. But the Christians started worshipping on Sunday because that was the day that they celebrated the New Covenant, the resurection of Christ. The Old Covenant celebrated the Sabbath and was a celebration of Creation. The New Covenant brought the resurrection and Christ was our rest. There were many covenants in scripture and each one added to the prior one and was a better and better covenant.

So, people decided to disregard God's law? Shabbot is far more than a celebration of creation, is is a mark of the partnership between God and man. The Sabbath should be central to a believer's life. Every conenant God made with man was built one upon another. The Noahic code was not superceded, but added to, for example. Jesus followed the rules, was kosher, and I am sure would not suggest his followers abandon God in such a way.

You say Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, I say we all are 100% man and 100% God. We are all sons of God in a manner of speaking. I believe in an imminant God, not a transcendent one. My evidence is my experience.

The OT did have strict dietary laws. Peter was told in the NT that all things now were acceptable to eat. It's kinda long to go into here but not only do I think that God knew that certain foods were harmful if not cooked properly so he had a prohibition of safety regarding such foods but I also think it's all tied in with the Gentile-Jewish thing as well. Just as it was ok to eat "gentile" food after the resurection, it was ok for these gentiles to come into the faith as well. They would be joint heirs in the kingdom. That was very tough to swallow for the Jews and Peter had to deal with this.

Kashrut was never about cleanliness in the biological sense, it was about being clean before God, that is acceptable to God. When God commands something, He in effect is making that thing holy or sacred. It is your obligation, if you are a literalist, to follow all 613 commandments of God. So, you think God changed His mind after He had a kid?
Possible, I suppose, but unlikely, in my opinion. Gentiles, or "ger" were always part of Israel. Not tough to swallow at all. In fact there is some good evidence I understand that Egyptians left with the Hebrews during the Exodus. We are commanded not to treat a righteous stranger in any but a welcoming way. While Jews rarely attempt to seek out converts and make it tough on those wishing to convert, we do not think it tough to swallow at all.

Remember back then there were many deities worshipped via golden calf like images. God said to the Jews..."Don't be like them, be separate and holy." These images pointed away from Christ. I would not put a crucifix in the same category. It's not the substance but the spirit that matters. God isn't concerned with the externals but the internal. To a Christian, the cross is a reminder of the price paid for our sin and the abundant love that was poured out for us there. It points to God

You are doing a bit of revisionism here, I'm afraid. The Hebrews were and remain supremely monotheistic and their God has always been an invisable God. The commandent about having no other gods before God and not creating graven images was a a good thousand years before Jesus was born and had nothing to do with him. Remember God as portrayed in scripture is a very jealous God. I see this as a reflection either of His insecurity or the insecurity of those creating this infant monotheism.

God is the same, today, yesterday and forever. God does not change. He has a plan from the beginning and it's being played out exactly as planned.

Good point. I agree with the first part, God does not change. However, our understanding does as we grow as a species, deepen and learn from our experiences both with each other and with Him. I am not so sure at all about the latter. I don't see God, personally, as a creator God. I think creation comes and goes and comes again like a vast breath, perhaps of God's, I don't know. I think we and He are intimately connected, made of the very same stuff, dso to speak. We human beings love to think there are reasons, i.e. plans, for everything, but I am not so sure, at least not in the way we typically think of a plan.

Of all of Aristotle's four ways of understanding causation, I am most fond of final cause, that is teleological cause. This cause suggests we are here for the sake of something. All behavior is purposeful and future driven. We act for the sake of something most of the time, rather than because of something. When we look at it this way, the Infinite prhaps had only sentience and discovery in mind, who knows? Animal life became His way of experiencing and discovering Himself.

But you see, this is mere speculation. Zen Buddhists try to avoid such activities as essentially hindrances to the task at hand which is precisely that, to experience exactly and fully this that is here right now.

I can see that. But when you start looking closer and putting it all together like a puzzle you get a whole different perspective than the one you've had. I don't think you have your pieces out of the box yet and they are just a jumbled mess. That's what I like to do, help people put the pieces together.

Nice thought. You are somewhat on the mark. But then for me eternity is my box. The only problem with your picture here is that it presupposes a finished picture. And contrary to that impossibly crazy piece of jibberish, Revelations, there are no end times, only the rising and falling away of conditions.

Be well.