• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gospels and Credibility

U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Would the different and some contradictory accounts of Jesus life by the authors of, say, John and Luke, discredit the validity of the gospels themselves?

I read on this site that none of the men have ever met Jesus. If that is true, their "facts" cannot contradict each other. If God told them what happened since they were not there, why arent the two (and other two) stories of Jesus exactly the same? (Not written the same, but the context is)

Taking that the gospels are Not All metaphorical; and, that Jesus actually existed.

Or just in general,

If I was reading my longer posts and saw the spelling errors, even though the post may be true (especially that of my faith), they STILL lose creditiblity for being The Truth. I would set them aside as opinions or beliefs not spiritual "facts" which cannot be changed by what letter goes where.

If my post was inspired by God, how would I know this as a reader? I would literally have to bypass the generalities, subjective statements, grammar losses, and spelling errors (regardless the language and time I wrote it) to discipher the Truth. (Aka, point)

The point: Metaphorical or not, the Bible looses credibility to be used as an objective citation to proof beliefs into facts. I was reading this when I Did read the full gospels many times. It didnt bother me since I dont set my life to it. It just puzzles me that something being inspired can still contain descripencies.

If I am wrong, anything I write in God's name would be inspired. It doesnt need to be in the bible to be inspired just as Luke's Book. Can we measure what is and isnt inspired based on time period and whether something "fits" to be so?
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Carlita said:
It just puzzles me that something being inspired can still contain descripencies.
Click to expand...
It depends how one understands the meaning of "inspired". I certainly can write an inspired thought down, compose inspired music, and so forth. But to some they interpret "inspired" to mean dictated verbatim. That is not what inspiration really means. Inspiration essentially means "spirit breathed". Spirit breathing is not the same as "God dictating". The wind blows where it likes, and those who move with it, who move with spirit are inspired. It says nothing about being "without error", whatever that really means. It still comes from the mouths and minds of humans, and as such will be humans moved by spirit. It doesn't mean without errors.

Carlita said:
If I am wrong, anything I write in God's name would be inspired.
Click to expand...
Not at all. If you simply pen the name God to it, I think it will speak for itself whether or not it is inspired. Does it inspire others through you, or are you just talking out of your ego? That will show either way.

Carlita said:
It doesnt need to be in the bible to be inspired just as Luke's Book. Can we measure what is and isnt inspired based on time period and whether something "fits" to be so?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. I think the idea that inspiration is a closed book, canonizing scripture the way it is, is absolutely contrary to the nature of Spirit and inspiration. It creates a false image right from the outset.
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
This idea that the Bible has sole authority is a protestant thing. I suppose because they rejected the Catholic church as having the authority of interpretation. We can believe they were men inspired by their faith to write about God, but they were still men.

Protestants had no place else to place the authority except in the Bible. They didn't trust men. They didn't trust the religious leadership of the Catholic church.

It pretty much served to place the authority to interpret the Bible with each individual, yet they argue among themselves as to who has the correct interpretation. They want to claim the authority to interpret the Bible not only for themselves but also for everyone else.

The Bible are stories written by men who were inspired by their beliefs and experiences to write about God. It became "God's Word" through an aberration of political ideology.

Are you inspired by your beliefs and experiences to write about God? Only you can measure that.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I agree with most things you said. I would not say inspiration from God needs to be verbatim. Hence,
Windwalker said:
Not at all. If you simply pen the name God to it, I think it will speak for itself whether or not it is inspired. Does it inspire others through you, or are you just talking out of your ego? That will show either way.
Click to expand...

If a believer today writes something that God tols to write, who are we to judge that it is her ego whether or not she cites it from God or not.

The very nothing of picking what is inspired by time and "if it fits" takes out the point of inspiration being spirit breathed not spirit controlled and cherry picked.

Windwalker said:
Well, yes. I think the idea that inspiration is a closed book, canonizing scripture the way it is, is absolutely contrary to the nature of Spirit and inspiration. It creates a false image right from the outset.
Click to expand...

But yes, I agree it is contrary. I find it odd that no other christian can write the "same type" and "same source" of inspirarion as people Peter, for example.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Carlita said:
Would the different and some contradictory accounts of Jesus life by the authors of, say, John and Luke, discredit the validity of the gospels themselves?

I read on this site that none of the men have ever met Jesus. If that is true, their "facts" cannot contradict each other. If God told them what happened since they were not there, why arent the two (and other two) stories of Jesus exactly the same? (Not written the same, but the context is)

Taking that the gospels are Not All metaphorical; and, that Jesus actually existed.

Or just in general,

If I was reading my longer posts and saw the spelling errors, even though the post may be true (especially that of my faith), they STILL lose creditiblity for being The Truth. I would set them aside as opinions or beliefs not spiritual "facts" which cannot be changed by what letter goes where.

If my post was inspired by God, how would I know this as a reader? I would literally have to bypass the generalities, subjective statements, grammar losses, and spelling errors (regardless the language and time I wrote it) to discipher the Truth. (Aka, point)

The point: Metaphorical or not, the Bible looses credibility to be used as an objective citation to proof beliefs into facts. I was reading this when I Did read the full gospels many times. It didnt bother me since I dont set my life to it. It just puzzles me that something being inspired can still contain descripencies.

If I am wrong, anything I write in God's name would be inspired. It doesnt need to be in the bible to be inspired just as Luke's Book. Can we measure what is and isnt inspired based on time period and whether something "fits" to be so?
Click to expand...

I have always been puzzled by the skepticism of the disciples after the first reports of Jesus resurrection.

Can some Christian explain that to me?

Ciao

- viole
 
wizanda

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Carlita said:
Can we measure what is and isnt inspired based on time period and whether something "fits" to be so?
Click to expand...
We can build a foundation of what fits together, and then check the bits that don't...Yet eventually we realize, that everything is divinely inspired even if it is completely contrary to what is right; as this whole Matrix reality is here to learn from. :innocent:
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
wizanda said:
We can build a foundation of what fits together, and then check the bits that don't...Yet eventually we realize, that everything is divinely inspired even if it is completely contrary to what is right; as this whole Matrix reality is here to learn from. :innocent:
Click to expand...
Em. I aree with the rest, everything is divinely inspired even if contrary. A matrix.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Carlita said:
Would the different and some contradictory accounts of Jesus life by the authors of, say, John and Luke, discredit the validity of the gospels themselves?

I read on this site that none of the men have ever met Jesus. If that is true, their "facts" cannot contradict each other. If God told them what happened since they were not there, why arent the two (and other two) stories of Jesus exactly the same? (Not written the same, but the context is)

Taking that the gospels are Not All metaphorical; and, that Jesus actually existed.

Or just in general,

If I was reading my longer posts and saw the spelling errors, even though the post may be true (especially that of my faith), they STILL lose creditiblity for being The Truth. I would set them aside as opinions or beliefs not spiritual "facts" which cannot be changed by what letter goes where.

If my post was inspired by God, how would I know this as a reader? I would literally have to bypass the generalities, subjective statements, grammar losses, and spelling errors (regardless the language and time I wrote it) to discipher the Truth. (Aka, point)

The point: Metaphorical or not, the Bible looses credibility to be used as an objective citation to proof beliefs into facts. I was reading this when I Did read the full gospels many times. It didnt bother me since I dont set my life to it. It just puzzles me that something being inspired can still contain descripencies.

If I am wrong, anything I write in God's name would be inspired. It doesnt need to be in the bible to be inspired just as Luke's Book. Can we measure what is and isnt inspired based on time period and whether something "fits" to be so?
Click to expand...
I believe the gospel accounts are complementary, not contradictory. Three of the gospel writers were intimate associates of Christ, Matthew and John being apostles, and Mark an associate of the apostles. (1 John 1:1-3) Luke carefully compiled his gospel from eyewitness accounts. I think one needs to take the claims of those who attack the Bible with more than a little caution, given how many times their theories have proven false. To me it is only reasonable that God, who sent his Son to give life to mankind, would preserve a faithful record of what his Son said and did. Having four separate accounts serves to provide perspectives that a single account cannot provide. The fact that some gospel accounts include events or details others omit only serves to demonstrate no collusion occurred in the writing. So often, so-called discrepancies can easily be harmonized, just as two eyewitness accounts of an event may differ slightly because of the perspective and background of those witnesses.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
rusra02 said:
I believe the gospel accounts are complementary, not contradictory. Three of the gospel writers were intimate associates of Christ, Matthew and John being apostles, and Mark an associate of the apostles. (1 John 1:1-3) Luke carefully compiled his gospel from eyewitness accounts. I think one needs to take the claims of those who attack the Bible with more than a little caution, given how many times their theories have proven false. To me it is only reasonable that God, who sent his Son to give life to mankind, would preserve a faithful record of what his Son said and did. Having four separate accounts serves to provide perspectives that a single account cannot provide. The fact that some gospel accounts include events or details others omit only serves to demonstrate no collusion occurred in the writing. So often, so-called discrepancies can easily be harmonized, just as two eyewitness accounts of an event may differ slightly because of the perspective and background of those witnesses.
Click to expand...

That is the problem on Both Sides. Both sides tell each other are false rather than step from their own shoes and be in the other persons shoes. Until either part does that, they will accuse each other of being false.

So, I look at both sides with caution ans both sides with a benefit of the doubt.

On the one side, one would need faith and devotion to trust what you read is actually from Jesus. Two, no language can be one hundred percent translated into another. We are going by educated guesses-especially the inspired part--and concluding because it says the Word was Christ we interpret that the words are Christ as well.

Believers need to step back and see ir from a non believers side. Everything is not perfect, bible included.

Likewise, to the other side, not everything is metaphorical and to be taken as symbolic. Some events actually are claimes to happen and history prove some of the events "could be" true, again, based on educated guesses.

-
So, I have no reason to pick sides.

Are you able to understand why and how language, hearsay, and time period can greatly change the original message?

Even more so, since no words are from Jesus, greatly influence what you feel he said strongly even though he may not have had?

To answer the OP you have to think "what if this is true? How would the non believer come to that conclusion? Ah ha! THAT makes sense (not thats false) I see how they see it. Lets talk about it"

No one is true or false in this discussion.
 
Unification

Unification

Well-Known Member
viole said:
I have always been puzzled by the skepticism of the disciples after the first reports of Jesus resurrection.

Can some Christian explain that to me?

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
Everyone is fully capable of crucifying their ego at the place of the skull and resurrecting internally to a more aware, balanced, whole, one mind internally and with the rest of life and nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top