Chili

You are right and you have a wise mum and please always remember that the wisdom of a good mum comes from as deep as wide waters are wide. The apparent and obvious differences in the Gospels are not contradicitions but compliments to each other the reinforce what they mean to say as seen from different perspectives.

But they are all metaphors, for sure, except for John 6:55 where " my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," to say that substance is the body of Christ and liquid is the blood of Christ,.which then is also why protestants left the company of Christ already in John 6:66 and are still here today.

aa5874

The mother BELIEVES the Gospels are all LITERALLY TRUE and LITERALLY WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS.

Doug Shaver

Not as I see it. I see it as a difference in something that goes by various names. You can call them different paradigms, different worldviews, different epistemic foundations, or different things of that sort. A major mistake I see commonly made on both sides is the supposition that anybody who does not accept one's paradigm, worldview, or whatever, must be suffering from a defect of intellect, or education, or character, or some other virtue that enables all right-thinking people to just see, more or less intuitively, that certain very important things are obviously true.

Of course this is not to deny the effect of ignorance on the thinking of large numbers of people, but don't see it as the definitive difference between people who, in my own judgment, are enlightened versus those who are not.

Chili

But if Matthew and Mark's Jesus goes back to Galilee where the messianic movement (read charismatic movement) takes place [without end] and Luke's Jesus goes to heaven instead there better be a difference to show causation to this end.

To me it is abundantly clear that the 4 Gospels show the difference between heaven and hell with heaven being an end to purgation while hell is a return to purgation after crucifixion which was a common malaise in those days that prompted the Gospels to be written to start with. IOW, Luke and John are there to show how it is supposed to be done while Matthew and Mark are there to show how it was being done and why it is that things did and will wrong in the end.

Most important here is the origination of the primary premise that must be incipient from Nazareth instead of [carnal] desire as is shown in John 1:13, wherefore then Mary is the key to Redemption and Elizabeth the primary cause of origination, which is missing in Matthew and in Mark while in John this is evident with Nathan tumbling down from the fig tree to show that it was nature's course and not carnal by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course as NT people we now have Rome (and never New York), but for the OT people it was and still is Nazareth which is that big little city of God that is located in the innermost depth of our being to which this mum is trying to remain true regardless of its name.

Edit to add that if we are willing to accept this distinction all the differences in the Gospels will fall in place in support of it, most notably with James and John as 2 Jesus images of which James goes to hell and John to heaven (and sorry about my abrupt use of the word hell but if heaven is achieved it is inevitable that hell comes crashing down since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other).

OLDMAN

This is the height of hyprocrisy. "They are all metaphors". except for the part that makes my church right and yours wrong. I hope this was intended as humour.

Christians do not read their bible, they are endoctrined in the church.
That is why they do not see the contradictions, over 400. Even claiming they are metaphors doesnt explain them away, not even close.

Chili

Well it is true that a wrong is needed to make a right known but that makes the wrong hypocratic and not the right, which then was my point that you refuse to accept, once again, as did those when Jesus spoke those very words. To this end you must agree that the words 'real food' and 'real drink' mean just that after the transformation takes place in the mind of the believer and not in the substance to be received.

Christians proper in the manner of Jesus are in heaven where there is no temple to be found, etc. wherefore then Jeus was never addressed as Christ while on earth and not until after Ascension took place as is shown in the Jerome ending of Mark, and there no longer is called Jesus. Actually, the transition is from Jesus to Christ, to Christ Jesus and after Assumption finally to Jesus Christ in, of course the life of Joseph the upright Jew wherein so then.the "follow me" is validated.

Toto

Chili is not a humorist, he is a surrealist.

OLDMAN

Mumble jumble is needed to make more muble jumble.....
Jesus Christ is not even his real name...do you know his real name?

mountainman

Hey OLDMAN,

The name as it first appears in the earliest manuscript and papyri evidence was two Greek codes "J_S" and "C_T". The relationship between the codes and the names are not explicated in the earliest physical evidence.


Best wishes,


Pete

OLDMAN

Interesting, my understanding (or lack of it) was Jesus was the English translation for the given Greek name for his Hebrew name. Christ was the English translation for the Greek word meaning savior. (I'm trying to be coy here as not to give Chilli the answer)

I know from previous post, you've done your homework. Much more than I, perhaps others would like to discuss. Maybe this could be a separate thread?