/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't really get what his argument is? Luke probably used Mark as one of his sources but he explains right at the start that he's doing an investigation to write his own account of Jesus ministry, including using eyewitness sources. It's different because Luke never intended on writing a complete copy of Mark, he used Mark as one of many sources for his own gospel. This guy seems to be making the assumption that any changes from Mark mean that Luke must have deliberately decided to change things to fabricate his own narrative. Why though? Isn't it just more reasonable to think maybe some of his sources remembered events slightly differently than Peter did, who was Marks primary source?

All I see is another brainlet atheist youtuber projecting his own biases into his reading of the gospels.

>>765588

I don't know how much that information changes things. Truth be told, the 4 gospels we have today were selected out of many accounts of Jesus' life that were circulating.

Initially it would have been memorized, like the oral torah, and the church then selected the accounts of Jesus' life that best reflected the oral history. The 4 gospels also represent different things and tell the story from different angles, and each one is related to a creature from Ezekiel's prophecy. Matthew is the history from a human perspective, Luke is the history from a legal perspective, Mark is the prophetic perspective, and John is the divine perspective. These books could not be classed as history the way we know history today. It is a fools errand to "separate" the historical Jesus from the text of the gospels. Doing so is very nice and secular, but it doesn't help us get to a reductive "core" of the history of Jesus, there is no way to chop up a Bible and prove that Jesus didn't raise from the dead. Also the gospel of Luke may have been written for propaganda reasons, and then the church may have adopted it for reasons unrelated to that purpose and innocently.

>>765588

There are always people simultaneously complaining that gospels don't all cover the same things while simultaneously claiming they are all copied from each other. You're always going to have people like that who would never be satisfied, whether something is or isn't a certain way they would have a problem with it simply because they don't like its implications.

>>765606

This.

>>765674

They don't understand that the differences are a mark of authenticity. It would be super easy make everything line up if they were concerned with keeping the story straight. The fact there are minor differences is indicative they actually used different sources.

>>765588

>Hey Anons, Hope you are having a good Sabbath

… You posted this on Sunday.

>>765679

Sunday is our Sabbath day, anon…

>>765684

No. This is not Christianity. Saturday is the Sabbath, the 7th day of creation. Sunday is the Day of the Lord, the 8th day of creation.

I don't know what weird exegesis you made of the Bible to conclude that the Sabbath was moved one day further, and that we observe the Sabbath, but it's wrong.

>>765686

What you are arguing is semantics. Here's a quote from Oxford's dictionary:

>Sabbath (n)

>A day of religious observance and abstinence from work, kept by Jews from Friday evening to Saturday evening, and by most Christians on Sunday.

I don't know why you want to just hand the jews full reign over a word, but I'm pretty sure you are overreacting, friend.

>>765588

>the gospels are wrong because they’re copies of each other

>the gospels are wrong because they’re different from each other

Riiiiiiiiiight

>>765691

Is your authority on the faith the Oxford dictionary? Or is it the scriptures, the apostolic tradition, and your hierarchical authorities in the Church?

>>765588

This highlights a problem with the notion that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God. As any detective will tell you, witness statements are unreliable. If you ask ten different people about an event they just witnessed, you'll get ten different versions of that event. The gospels are witness statements, and as such, they contain contradictions. However, the Christian church is handcuffed by their idolatrous view that the bible is infallible and so they have to bury their head in the sand whenever a contradiction is pointed out.

Luke wasn't trying to write a better gospel or fix problems with the existing gospels, he was writing down the witness statement of Peter.

>>765686

How do we know you aren't claiming Saturday is the Sabbath because you've gone retarded from veganism? 7th Day Adventists are vegan and veganism has been shown to cause mental retardation.

>>766022

>he was writing down the witness statement of Peter.

No, that was Mark. Luke was a disciple of Paul and used a bunch of sources in and around Jerusalem including the Blessed Virgin Mary herself.

Check out tektontv (J.P. Holding on youtube). He's done a lot of videos refuting this guy.

>>765726

I have faith that Oxford is an expert in the English language, more so than some anon on a latin waffer making forum.

"The Lord's Day" = The Sabbath Day

It isn't hard to figure it out. Just because the word Sabbath scares you, doesn't make it bad.

>>766025

I'm not a Protestant. It is actually 7th-day Adventists who claim that we moved the Sabbath to Sunday, in case you did not know.

>>766048

>I have faith that Oxford is an expert in the English language, more so than some anon on a latin waffer making forum.

That you say that my claim that the Sabbath is on Saturday, the Day of the Lord is on Sunday, and they are two different things, is just a random Anon's claim online, makes me seriously, seriously doubt that you know anything about Christianity. Are you Catholic? Protestant? Orthodox?

As to what kind of stupid crap Anglophone Christianity has come up with, I don't care. I can understand something like Passover being renamed to Easter, it doesn't change a whole lot since the Christian Passover is not the Jewish Passover. But to simply conflate two distinct holy days? What saint, what council, what scriptures say that the Sabbath is on Sunday, or that the Day of the Lord is the Sabbath? Can you cite a more religious source than the Oxford dictionary?

>It isn't hard to figure it out. Just because the word Sabbath scares you, doesn't make it bad.

"Sabbath" does not "scare" me. The Sabbath is a holy day, although not the day we are bound to commemorate anymore as Christians. To say that the Sabbath and the Day of the Lord are one and the same thing is an insult to both, and therefore an insult to the whole faith.

>>765686

> 8th day of creation.

This idea comes from the epistle of Barnabas which, if I remember correctly, was speaking against the Jewish sabbath.

Why do atheists try to spread their lies across the internet? Like honest question, does the idea of religion in general just send them into shock? I just don't get it.

>>768783

Yes.. Not sure about Catholics, but Orthodox tradition even states he was also an artist and apparently made a portrait of St. Mary, making him sort of informally (?) the first iconographer of the church.

>>767059

Satan and his minons never take a break. To them, getting people to lose faith in God isn't work, it is their way of life.

>>768783

Yes. It's generally accepted that Lukes source for the infancy narrative was Mary herself, which is why it's so much more detailed than Matthews. I've also read in my study Bible that the first chapter of Luke has many "hebrewisms" that would indicate that Luke used a source that spoke Aramaic, like Mary would have.

Also Luke describes things only Mary would have known. Consider Luke 2:19. How would anyone know what Mary kept in her heart unless she herself told them?

>>768936

>used a source that spoke Aramaic, like Mary would have.

b-b-but muh Mary spoke Latin, the Holy Language of God …

sorry, i still remember arguments some people wanted to have about what language the Jesus, Mary and the apostles spoke … it's all so tiresome …

That's interesting tho. I'd not heard that before.

>>768936

>>768783

if you look up the tradition behind Mary's Assumption it confirms that She was in and around the Apostle's circle.

Aside from obviously being around St. John a lot of the time, She must have instructed and passed on anecdotes to the Apostle's and their successors.

>>765588

Also I took the time to read all 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' last days. I don't see why Luke is more strongly pro-Roman when John gives Pilate the most dialogue.

Nevertheless, all agree that Pilate didn't really want to send Jesus to his death, he just "gave in" knowing that he might end up with a religiously motivated riot had he not. Ultimately, it's all pro-Roman insofar as the Romans understandably found the Pharisees' laws repulsive. Pilate acts realistically though, as any Roman governor would have.

>>768958

Pilate acts as any authority figure does with blood on his hands. He claims he doesn't, when he struck God.