Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, a lot of that history is missing and we are left with conjecture based on points of evidence from many conflicting sources. From what I can see it is not so much the history of the gospels, or even the history in the gospels that is important, but the message. Knowing the history might help in understanding some of the elements in the book and their reflection of that history, but I'd say that the important thing about the history as we know it is that there is no basis for truninbg the gospels into an "authority" for what the message should inspire in us. With that in mind, unravelling the history is a fascinating subject.
Unfortunately, a lot of that history is missing and we are left with conjecture based on points of evidence from many conflicting sources. From what I can see it is not so much the history of the gospels, or even the history in the gospels that is important, but the message. Knowing the history might help in understanding some of the elements in the book and their reflection of that history, but I'd say that the important thing about the history as we know it is that there is no basis for truninbg the gospels into an "authority" for what the message should inspire in us. With that in mind, unravelling the history is a fascinating subject.
If they are not an authority then you can't believe even the "message" you refer to.
A message with no authoritative source, is simply one man's opinion.
The version of Matthew that is derived from Greek texts would be a later addition most likely. The book was first given in Hebrew text according to the historian of the time which was Josephus. Therefore, Mark could certainly have been known in the Greek before Matthews text. I have what some scholars think could be the earliest form of that Hebrew text in the George Howard version of the translation from Shem Tov's version that he used to quote and remark on it in arguments against Christians. The book is no longer in print and has some very interesting deviations from the Greek text.
If the message is confirmed by the Spirit that is all the authority you should need. After all, the Book says that the Spirit "will guide."
But if the book has no authority there is no assurance of any spirit to guide anyone, or that it is God's spirit guiding anyone.
The non authoritative book says ........................ and who then should care.
But if the book has no authority there is no assurance of any spirit to guide anyone, or that it is God's spirit guiding anyone.
The non authoritative book says ........................ and who then should care.
Your paradox is that your "authoritative" book says that the Spirit will guide, but you deny authority to that spirit and vest it all in the book that tells about rhat Spirit. Does not compute.
Add: If the Spirit is authority then it does not need the book and the history of the production of that book warrants the denial of authority TO that book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
