• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you have a favorite gospel?

blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
dybmh said:
Do you have a favorite Gospel in the Christian Bible? If so, which is it and why?
Click to expand...
Probably not as such, but if I had to choose one, I'd go with Mark.

Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew until at his baptism the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] Son on the pattern of David's adoption Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33). That he was originally nothing special is not true of the Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke or John, so Mark is the only version with at least one foot on the ground.

And (Paul giving no bio of any substance for Jesus) it's the first, though something like 45 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death . Some, not impossibly all, of it, is unhistorical, but if there was an historical Jesus the first place to look for him is in Mark ─ nor am I the first to think so.
 
Last edited:
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Matthew (Levi) being the tax collector that shows through with his style of writing.
Mark (John Mark) youth shows through with his snappy-and-peppy style.
Luke (physician) shows through with his compassion.
John's great love shows through, and to me is more appealing to me as an adult.
I think I'll choose Luke as a favorite if one has to choose.
I like the details found at Luke 19:41-43 ; Luke 21:11, and Luke 21:21 how the Christians knew when to leave Jerusalem for Pella.
And how we are to feel in our time frame as written at Luke 21:28.
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
LightofTruth said:
Concerning the women taken in adultery:

Here are thirteen points that summarize why we should not treat John 7:53–8:11 as original to the text.

  1. John 7:53–8:11 are missing from earliest manuscripts (P66 P75 Sinaiticus Vaticanus). Alexandrinus is defective at this point (pages are missing), but there doesn’t appear to be enough room for 7:53–8:11 to have been included.
  2. It’s missing from the oldest (syrc, s) and the best (syrp) Syriac manuscripts.
  3. It’s absent in some of the Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts.
  4. It’s not in the best manuscripts of the Pe****ta, the Syriac translation of the Bible made in the early third century.
  5. It’s not referenced in the Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron, which combined the four Gospels but without our passage.
  6. No Church Father writes a commentary on the passage until the 12th century, and then Euthymius says it’s not authentic. The earlier Fathers comment up to John 7:52 and then move directly to comment on John 8:12ff., and several Fathers (Origen, Chrysostom) commented verse by verse on the biblical book.
  7. It’s not found in most lectionaries.
  8. The first manuscript to have it is D (fifth century), a Western text-type manuscript willing to repeat many altered readings.
  9. Many manuscripts mark it with scholia, indicating that it’s not authentic.
  10. Erasmus’ number 1 manuscript omits it. He writes, “The story of the adulterous woman is not contained in the majority of Greek copies.
  11. One of the signs that a passage may not be original is that it appears in different locations in the New Testament (after John 7:36, 7:44, John 21:25, or Luke 21:38; 24:53). If it were authentic, it is more likely to appear in only one location.
  12. The style and vocabulary are different from the rest of the gospel.
  13. It interrupts the flow of Jesus’ discourse from chapter 7 to chapter 8.
John 7:53–8:11 | Missing Bible Verses
Click to expand...
There is always "the other side of the coin". Maybe if we asked "Why did they include it in the Bible?"

"According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.”" S. S. Patrum J. B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p.235.

Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
LightofTruth said:
Concerning the women taken in adultery:

Here are thirteen points that summarize why we should not treat John 7:53–8:11 as original to the text.

  1. John 7:53–8:11 are missing from earliest manuscripts (P66 P75 Sinaiticus Vaticanus). Alexandrinus is defective at this point (pages are missing), but there doesn’t appear to be enough room for 7:53–8:11 to have been included.
  2. It’s missing from the oldest (syrc, s) and the best (syrp) Syriac manuscripts.
  3. It’s absent in some of the Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts.
  4. It’s not in the best manuscripts of the Pe****ta, the Syriac translation of the Bible made in the early third century.
  5. It’s not referenced in the Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron, which combined the four Gospels but without our passage.
  6. No Church Father writes a commentary on the passage until the 12th century, and then Euthymius says it’s not authentic. The earlier Fathers comment up to John 7:52 and then move directly to comment on John 8:12ff., and several Fathers (Origen, Chrysostom) commented verse by verse on the biblical book.
  7. It’s not found in most lectionaries.
  8. The first manuscript to have it is D (fifth century), a Western text-type manuscript willing to repeat many altered readings.
  9. Many manuscripts mark it with scholia, indicating that it’s not authentic.
  10. Erasmus’ number 1 manuscript omits it. He writes, “The story of the adulterous woman is not contained in the majority of Greek copies.
  11. One of the signs that a passage may not be original is that it appears in different locations in the New Testament (after John 7:36, 7:44, John 21:25, or Luke 21:38; 24:53). If it were authentic, it is more likely to appear in only one location.
  12. The style and vocabulary are different from the rest of the gospel.
  13. It interrupts the flow of Jesus’ discourse from chapter 7 to chapter 8.
John 7:53–8:11 | Missing Bible Verses
Click to expand...

Yes, I know there is some doubt about it. But then there is a fair amount of doubt about a lot in the gospels - not to mention the OT of course. It doesn't matter: it is still a wonderful teaching story.
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
exchemist said:
Yes, I know there is some doubt about it. But then there is a fair amount of doubt about a lot in the gospels - not to mention the OT of course. It doesn't matter: it is still a wonderful teaching story.
Click to expand...
It is a good story. And it is not without allusion or reference to other stories.

Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners. .
 
Last edited:
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
LightofTruth said:
It is a good story. And it is not without allusion or reference to other stories.

Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners. .
Click to expand...
Well there are plenty of other examples in all the gospels of Jesus being focused on sinners rather than the righteous.

(By the way, the saying you attribute to Einstein in your footer is wrong. Einstein never said anything like that and certainly did not believe any such thing. It sounds like a garbled version of something Rutherford is supposed to have said, in the era before relativity and quantum theory. Einstein was instrumental in creating both, and both have made everything much more complicated - and impossible to explain simply.;) )
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
exchemist said:
Well there are plenty of other examples in all the gospels of Jesus being focused on sinners rather than the righteous.

(By the way, the saying you attribute to Einstein in your footer is wrong. Einstein never said anything like that and certainly did not believe any such thing. It sounds like a garbled version of something Rutherford is supposed to have said, in the era before relativity and quantum theory. Einstein was instrumental in creating both, and both have made everything much more complicated - and impossible to explain simply.;) )
Click to expand...
"Is wrong"?
That's a little arrogant on your part, don't you think?
Can you prove Einstein never said it? Do you have a recording of all that Einstein ever said?

Perhaps you could have SIMPLY said, "There is some doubt that the quote is from Einstein". fair enough. I still like it.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
LightofTruth said:
"Is wrong"?
That's a little arrogant on your part, don't you think?
Can you prove Einstein never said it? Do you have a recording of all that Einstein ever said?

Perhaps you could have SIMPLY said, "There is some doubt that the quote is from Einstein". fair enough. I still like it.
Click to expand...
No I can't prove that of course. Nobody can prove Jesus never said "Cor, look at that fit bird over there!" either.

But if you try to look it up you will find there is no evidence Einstein said it. Whereas there certainly is a widely quoted saying, attributed to Rutherford, that "if you can't explain your physics to a barmaid, then it probably isn't very good physics": {{meta.title}}

More here: Did Einstein say "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough"?

There are probably more sayings misattributed to Einstein than to any other figure in history.

(By the way, Feynman really did say "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics". Here is a video of him saying it:

)
 
Last edited:
M

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
dybmh said:
Do you have a favorite Gospel in the Christian Bible? If so, which is it and why?
Click to expand...
Not a real gospel but my favourite text is the (more or less lost) text of Q-lite that was reworked/adapted into Matthew and Luke.

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Because it is the only text in the New Testament that was (before it was heavily modified) totally rational and coherent but at the same time deeply spiritual.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
dybmh said:
Do you have a favorite Gospel in the Christian Bible? If so, which is it and why?
Click to expand...
John because it's the most unique of the four and has the most spiritual perspective. I love all of them though. Each one is special as far as I'm concerned.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
KenS said:
There is always "the other side of the coin". Maybe if we asked "Why did they include it in the Bible?"
Click to expand...
If we knew who "they" were, we'd likely be on the right track to find an answer.

Though more generally, the answer will be, one or other form of church politics.
 
C

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
dybmh said:
Do you have a favorite Gospel in the Christian Bible? If so, which is it and why?
Click to expand...
Revelation: Don't attack Iraq or face God's wrath.

It is my favorite because it applies to life today (the end times). It is the part of the bible that is the least understood, and least believed (for those who pick and choose the parts of the bible that they want to believe).
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
Well there are plenty of other examples in all the gospels of Jesus being focused on sinners rather than the righteous.....................)
Click to expand...

Focused because for sinners to hopefully repent, and to me a BIG example of Jesus being focused on the righteous at Matthew 25:37.
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
If we knew who "they" were, we'd likely be on the right track to find an answer.
Though more generally, the answer will be, one or other form of church politics.
Click to expand...
Not church politics, but the internal harmony between the many Bible writers are the ' they '.
The harmony between the many corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages.
The first 11 verses of John chapter 8 are Not part of the original text but added on.
Those verses are Not found in early manuscripts thus they were omitted in early versions.
For example: Not in the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican 1209 or the codex Bezae.
..... and as reported in post # 15
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top