sschlichter

How are the gospels a single source?

Newfie

If the Gospels are separate sources then are they used to support or contrast each other by believers? My experience is that they are not regarded as separate sources, but as parts of the one definitive source, the bible. Otherwise, other gospels, like that of Thomas, would have equal footing with the canonical gospels within the faith, which again has not been by experience. How do you feel about the Jesus Seminar?

sschlichter

they are only regarded now as a single source because they were compiled centuries later.

the fact that other books existed but were rejected is evidence of individual discrimination, not a lack of discrimination.

Plato never claimed to see Atlantis or talk to those whom have seen Atlantis or claim Atlantis existed in his lifetime.

~Steve

andrewcriddle

In fact Plato's account has Atlantis destroyed thousands of years before his day.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

Actually Atlantis is a good example: Plato took a story about a cataclysm (Thera?) and turned it into a myth for his own purposes. The original event was forgotten, and the great city itself probably never existed (unless it's a dim memory of Cretan Knossos).

For centuries readers of Plato believed his fabricated story, until modern scientists failed to dig up any real evidence. Ancient Minoans were re-discovered in recent times, their true history was unknown to the post-Homeric Greeks.

The original story of Crete was lost, and the substitute myth of Atlantis became "history"...

sschlichter

it is not analogous at all. The existence of Plato himself is not even analogous.

bacht

Okay, let me try again: some messianic Jews brought the Day of Judgment upon themselves and their countrymen (1st and 2nd revolts against Rome). After native Palestinian Jews were gone, second-century gentile Christians (like Mark) re-wrote this history into the coming of the universal saviour Christ. The original nationalist apocalypticists were largely forgotten, and the substitute catholic Christian story became the "history" of the first century. This held until at least the Protestant Reformation, over a thousand years.

Vinnie

Historical critical method.

There is no sense in denying that Ireneas or Justin, Mark, Matthew et al, were were written by Christians. That is plain silly as that designation is little more than a tautology for any literate person.

Are you saying there was no historical Jesus in the first century and no historical Christians in the second? I really don't know what you mean by how do you know these authors were Christian? Unless you are attempting to discuss the origin of the word Christian?

Vinnie

sschlichter

well, at least you found something analogous to the history of Atlantis.

IamJoseph

False. The Jews were alone revolting in consequence to Nero's resurrection of an old law of heresy by depraved Caligula. Those who abstained and worshipped brutal Roman images are the guilty here, blaspheming against the right to freedom of belief. This event is one numerously displayed by the Jews in a host of existential wars - with Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Europe and in Arabia today. It was hardly a new episode with Rome. The Jews merit points for consistancy.

False. The name was Judea - Palestine never existed then. And my watch says Mighty Rome is gone.


Two new religions emerged, not one. And Christianity and Islam have contradictory claims of revelations as well as factual history. Both cannot be right - both can be wrong.