posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by babloyi
I found this handy infographic on wikipedia. It shows how 35% of Luke is unique to Luke, 20% of Matthew is unique to Matthew, and only 3% of
Mark is unique to Mark. I'd say that makes the claim "the majority of the text is copied" not incorrect.
Relationship between Synoptic Gospels
That is the idea of the synoptic gospels.... that being three different accounts of the same events written some years apart
Which brings up the idea of the Q source which is nothing more then speculation... though very possible... nothing provable
I'm not sure where you heard otherwise. The book was built up in 3 phases, probably by many different authors who were probably part of an
early Johannine community.
the point is the original surviving texts was copied from 1st century texts, sometime in the early 2nd century...
PS: (and sorry now for what is such a huge post), but I'm curious as to what you mean by morality stuff in the NT that wasn't there before.
Because, at least according to Christian tradition
Well the OT says "do what I say, not what I do"... where as the NT says "Do what I say, I'll show you how, use my son as an example"
whether you were good or bad is irrelevant, you're damned in the afterlife if you didn't believe that Jesus Christ came as God incarnate to
sacrifice himself for your sins.
Christianity has some interesting ideas, e.g. turn the other cheek to violence and let him without sin cast the first stone, but it is
interesting how for example, the first has never been used properly in history (and now people say it is some sort of metaphorical thing or some other
excuse), and the second is supposedly an addition to the main text.
would you not say that forgiveness is supposed to be one of the main tenants of the "Christian" faith?
Forgive and you will be forgiven, show mercy and you will be shown mercy, yet if you do not show said attributes you will be shown none?