Scripture (Jesus, gospel, contradiction, beliefs, doctrine)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Though tangential to the thread, I would be surprised if even the most devout theist framed revelation as proof rather than access. It seems to me that revelation is deemed a means of acquiring truth, not a means of confirming it.

We are off topic a bit but it goes to the assertion some make about the truth of their scrpiture in opposition to the OP

I wonder how can anybody can acquire truth of the supernatural if it is not confirmed as truth. Neither science nor history for cohesion or correspondence provides us this answer. Consistency requires a logical argument. Pragmaticism falls to exceptions. What is left but revelation as a standard for evaluating evidence in scripture?

[EnhancedSpirit]

Originally Posted by Melody

But they can't all be "right" since they do not agree on some fundamental basics...like Jesus being God. I don't even want to get into who is right because the mormons believe they are, the muslims believe they are, christians believe they are and if we believed the other was right, we wouldn't believe in the faith that we do.

I'm getting a headache....

I'm sorry your head hurts. I don't know why we are butting heads today. I just believe God's truth can be found everywhere. Even in Green Eggs and Ham, if I look for it there. And for you to say that God was not the inspiration behind other spiritual text, seems to me like you are putting a limit on what God inspires.

And while you believe that Jesus is God, Jesus never said, you have to worship me as a God. He said, if you believe in Him, you believe in the Father. I do not consider this a basic fundamental of higher consciousness (Being in the mind of Christ). The basic fundamentals are love God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself. Charity and good-will. And many religions believe these fundamentals, and believe in Jesus. Just not the way you believe in Christ.

[reyjamiei]

Originally Posted by pah

reyjamiei,

I've also read, thought the place escapes me, that Mark is the model of Mathhew and Luke. For the life of me I can't figure out how "Q" fits in, except it may be the oral tradition that preceded the written versions. The simularities in verse between Matthew and Mark is remarkable.

Q is a hypothetical lost Gospel, no one can prove that it exited but many scholars believe that it did because of similarities between Matthew and Luke that aren't in the other Gospels. It's believed that Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark independantly of each other and also used another source referred to as Q which stands for Quelle which is German for source.

Two good books to read on the subject are:
Gospel Fictions &
Who Wrote The Gospels?
both by Randel Helms

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by reyjamiei

Q is a hypothetical lost Gospel, no one can prove that it exited but many scholars believe that it did because of similarities between Matthew and Luke that aren't in the other Gospels.

See, also, The Case Against Q.