 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Most likely when the church leaders gathered together during Constantine's reign to establish the common basis of the church the various gospels were being used by different groups of churches throughout the Roman empire. Probably keeping the indiviual gospels intact and seperate instead of consolidating them was a political move, it validated the basic literary foundation of the majority of churches throughout the Empire and avoided the almost certain major conflict that would have ensued had the council attempted to consolidate the 4 books into one.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
I have discussed this topic with priests, and they say you can be a Christian without even hearing of Jesus, if you live your life in a way that is in accordance with his teachings. He cited Gandhi (a non-christian) as being like any other Christian in the eyes of God.
|
BC:
Makes me wonder which priests you are talking to. They should be saying that while Ghandi is a morally upright person, unless he has professed faith in Christ, he will not be saved.
Now, you do raise an excellent point. If a man has never been introduced to Christ, in scriptures, or in speaking to a Christian, yet he still lives a moral life in the eyes of God, then God can certainly save him.
However, the key is in the contact. If a person has heard of Christ, yet does not acknowledge him as the Son of God, then he cannot expect to be saved.
Ghandi quoted from scripture on several occasions, yet I do not believe he ever professed faith in Christ. I think your priest does not know Ghandi very well, and assumes that the man never came into contact with Christians, or with scripture.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller
once more you want want the gospels to be all the same
are you an idiot?
if they were all the same there would be no point in all the ones after the first (or whatever)
the writers chose what to go in based upon what they thought was important
the fact that the writer of Matthew thought that it was important was enough to include it in the holy book of Christians, therefore it is important
Jon Miller |
Oh lord...
The point Mr. Genius is, one: the Church had more than enough time to, if it wanted, join all the texts (part of the point of the article in the Daily news is that the Church did try- and the attempt fell out of favor).
As for "each author put in what he thought was important" is a good point-against you, not for you. What that means is that each gospel is a specific narrative of its own, with its own feel- since Gibson decided not to film just one gospel, one singular unit with one singuler author, style and voice, that means that Gibson is the one who decided what was important to pick and chose for his movie, which brings up the question why he went with Matthew on the whole "blood libel", and not Luke, Mark, or John, none of which sawthe necessity to add that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
The point Mr. Genius is, one: the Church had more than enough time to, if it wanted, join all the texts (part of the point of the article in the Daily news is that the Church did try- and the attempt fell out of favor).
|
Why?
One of the strengths of the Gospels is that you have differing perspectives, different styles of writing, different purposes and target audiences for each Gospel.
quote:
each author put in what he thought was important" is a good point-against you, not for you. What that means is that each gospel is a specific narrative of its own, with its own feel
|
True, but the fact that they all agree on the basic facts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, ought to reinforce our confidence in all three events. For if each Gospel parroted the other, one could be much more suspicious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I've seen some pictures of the film which showed a christ bathed in blood on the cross. If that's the movie, cheap sensationalism I'd rather let others go and masturbate over it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Burly christ he was too. Looked more like a WWF show than the passions of christ. Besides, Jefireli has done it outstandingly well already.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The best Jesus film I have seen was based on a novel by a Greek Karantzakis - The Last Temptation.
Brilliant. A real Jesus at last. |
Haven't seen it but I remember the reactions in Europe. Religionists, to use a fashionable term, going to movie theaters and banging people on the head with crosses, staging restriction zones outside the movie theaters etc. For this book Kazantzakis became one of the top names in the Vatican's "enemy list" and was excommunicated from the Orthodox church as well.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but the fact that they all agree on the basic facts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, ought to reinforce our confidence in all three events. For if each Gospel parroted the other, one could be much more suspicious. |
Why? after all, if they are all from eye witnesses of the same events... And besides, if there was just one gospel (a 'true gospel"), believers whould not ask anyway.
They all agree on the virgin birth, cucifiction, and ressurection, which are basically the things that matter to Christians- they do mix a lot of details up thought.
quote: In other words, BS |
Nope- trully evil en don;t bother with either writing laws, or following what is on the books, they just act. So not even if they were the leaders of the state could their acts be correctly labelled as lawful- hich is what yu brought up- killing by the legal authorities might be murder, but a legal execution by the legal authorities can't be.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Jeruslem was a small city, but the Jews made the majority of citizens are were surrounded by a countryside of jews- so don;t be dense Imran- huge difference between jews in a jewish city in a jewish land rebelling and jews in Roman city in a Roman coutnryside rebelling. |
How much of Roman history do you know? Calling me dense! Jewish communities were usually seperated from the major towns. They had their own 'cities' basically. Babylon, for one, was the second largest Jewish city in the Roman Empire, and it was as Jewish a city as Jerusalem.
It was something future Christian sects would try to emulate. Seperate Christian cities, apart from the reach of the Empire. Of course you had the rabble rousers who'd rather live near the big cities, but a lot of them stayed apart, following the Jewish model of seperate communities, apart from the reast of the Roman world.
quote: One of the strengths of the Gospels is that you have differing perspectives, different styles of writing, different purposes and target audiences for each Gospel. |
Indeed, makes it more believable.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|