Why are there four gospels? (page 3)

LittleToe

Didier:
I think it's hard to separete the two so distinctly as you suggest.

I believe that it was an attempt to record the events (albeit post facto), but given the subjective nature of this it was bound to incorporate spiritual experience and beliefs.
Every piece of writing has some level of bias, however that doesn't brand it as fiction.

However, I candidly confess that this understanding is also conjecture on my part...

Trevor:

The Bible is not an encyclopaedia but a rather sinister and threatening book.

That's rather a knee-jerk reaction to an ancient book.

Do you have a problem with the guy recording his dreams/nightmares and adding a few cautions to a contemporary religous group that were being persecuted by Rome?

Incidentally, that's outwith the realms of the "Gospels", that this thread is concentrating upon.

ozziepost

So what's the problem with four gospels?

Given that gospel is simply the retelling of news, there might just have been any number of gospels.

So my reaction to Why 4 Gospels? is Why not?

gumby

The bible was put together by the Roman church. There was no plan to write a 'bible' by those who recorded events in the NT. There was no plan by god to have a NT written either.......at least the scriptures do not indicate it other than Timothys statement that was forged to give authenticity to the scriptures being inspired.
:God doesn't use the bible to communicate truth - religions do. God uses prophets to communicate truth - if prophets record what they are told it is acceptable as part of the canon but doesn't replace the one to one communication pattern between God and people

Then you better get your arse back to the Mormon church Qucumber. According to you....we should listen to some man who says god spoke to him eh? Your still a Mormon. I'd take the word of the bible over a single man if I had to choose between the two. Hell....you might as well take a trip through the psycho ward and believe the stories of the coo coo patients.

Gumby

jaffacake

LT

However, I candidly confess that this understanding is also conjecture on my part...

What you say makes sense, and seems compatible with what the Bible teaches on a spiritual level, although the authors did not always 'get it' at the time. It seems progress and enlightenment was evident by the time of Johns writing. The Bible is full of rules, Jesus said keep every dot of the Torah (like stone adulterers and disobedient children to death? or was their a deeper meaning in what he said?) (what were Jesus commandments?) & the Apostles said abstain from blood, women submit to men, slaves submit to their masters, don't practice homosexuality etc etc.

But how do we sum up all the rules, and which do we keep? With spiritual enlightenment, in time we may understand the overriding 'royal law' which does not impose prejudices of any historic culture. (Peter, James & Paul were all wrong about some of the rules - this is clear from the Bible). If we believe the Bible as a whole teaches truth, then we can recignise that one part of the Bible supersedes others, and some authors, although inspired, were mistaken. If we believe The Bible is inspired, then why not recognise that what it really teaches is not about facts, rules, doctrines, but about revelation of the creator and relationship with God through Christ. What did Christ say was the law and the prophets? What is the overwhelming measuring rod in the New Testament? What is God? God is love.

If God intended there to be more than one gospel, perhaps it is to teach that something takes priority over all written laws and doctrines. That the truth comes from diverse sources and we must continually critically examine all human teaching. The centrality of the Bible always points towards the personal Lordship of Christ, and the glorious freedom of the spirit of the Christian man and woman.

LittleToe

I concur with your whole post.
The only alteration I would make would be to place more emphasis on "love".

Love IS the law!

How might we be "love"?

hibiscusfire

It is the moments before the Lord Jesus "gave up the ghost" that He died

jaffacake

It is the moments before the Lord Jesus "gave up the ghost" that He died

Hi Could you help me out with this one? P.S. I have made a comment on your post on the thread 'what do you believe in a nutshell. Hope you find it helpful.

Qcmbr

Gumby I can't criticise your dislike of lds land but I wasn't actually referring to my belief in a modern day prophet- its just if the bible is your guide you are effectively listening to the words of individual prophets (my original point) as opposed to a book put together by a church. What is interesting is that often the prophets had particular guidance from God that was for the people at that time and not for us now (hence most christians don't sacrifice animals on altars to the best of my knowledge) If you believe the bible you've got to believe God speaks to us via prophets when he is revealing stuff for the masses (wasn't promoting mormon ville honest.) Amos 3:7.

trevor

The closed shop mentality. Accept our Diary??? or you are accursed.

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" (Galatians 1:6-9)

the_classicist

The bible was put together by the Roman church.

I believe it was first formulated by the Council of Carthage and St. Ambrose, then by the Decree of St. Damasus.

Why are there four gospels?

Share this