It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word...
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
But is the "Golden Rule" all that unique to Christianity? I'd say it certainly wasn't something morally new that Christianity introduced, in fact, people say it is there in some form or another in almost every religion.
Q is indeed speculation,
I don't speak for Christianity... I only know what it should be...
do onto others as you want done onto you... how does that apply when one takes upon himself what he doesn't want done to him or others... and still does not retaliate?
I'm not talking about the Quran.
My apologies. Perhaps I should've used the word "Christian Bible" in there instead of "Christianity". My point being, the Golden Rule wasn't something new that Christianity invented. And it fits perfectly in your scenario: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", not "Do unto others what they are doing to you".
"Turn the other cheek"- as in non-resistance to the point of facilitating violence or oppression (someone strikes you, give them the other cheek to strike, someone takes your coat, give them your coat as well, etc.), is a somewhat disturbing philosophy even in theory if you ask me,