-
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!
What is the "message" of the Gospels?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Matthew and Luke are basically gMark with added birth stories, added post resurrections, and a few sayings and teachings tossed in, and finally a few "corrections" made as they saw fit.
No way, organic is better.
Better what, profits?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
unfortunately yes, but better tasting also.
Penn & Teller did a segment on organics, you can youtube it. The taste tests were the best part.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I'll check it out.
Shermana
Heretic
I have yet to see a compelling argument other than some kind of appeal to majority (and I fail to see why the majority agrees) that Matthew is based on gMark and not the other way around.
Shermana
Heretic
Ah, they couldn't have possibly rigged the experiment or had improper test controls. Of course not......................
(Their expert was not at all on Monsanto's payroll or anything...)
http://www.green-blog.org/2009/08/0...ention-that-their-expert-is-paid-by-monsanto/
I'm so glad we have totally objective, non-affiliated people like Penn and Teller to finally set the record straight and put all those organic "crazies" to shame.
Why did this attempt at humor turn into such a topic changer?
Last edited:
There are good arguments for Matthew written first but overall the best arguments are for Mark. I read them a long time ago so I am not much help as to the reasons but wiki might be a suggestion for what is called the synoptic problem.
They would peel a banana and then cut it in half, placing one half on a plate labeled "organic" and then put the other half of the same banana on a plate labeled "not organic" and then put them out on a table in a booth at a market place and asked people to try the samples and to tell them what tasted best. Guess which half of the banana people liked best.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
I think the "best arguments" for Markan priority are shoddy arguments. Perhaps this would be a great new thread topic.
Dependence of Mark upon Matthew
Shermana
Heretic
They would peel a banana and then cut it in half, placing one half on a plate labeled "organic" and then put the other half of the same banana on a plate labeled "not organic" and then put them out on a table in a booth at a market place and asked people to try the samples and to tell them what tasted best. Guess which half of the banana people liked best.
I've had some untasty organic bananas, and some delicious ones, and I've had plenty of non-organic bananas, and most of the organic bananas are way better in quality. I wouldn't place much stock in this as a controlled experiment. In fact, I tried the Organic bananas from Trader Joe's today....no good. (I think TJ's has really cheaped out on "Organic" products lately). Many so-called "Organic products" are not very good quality, no denying that.
Much like the grafts to the Tree of Israel, there will be many bad apples claiming to be legit even in the "Organic" basket.
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Shermana
Heretic
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/144895-markan-priority.html
The thread is now up,
Feel free to comment.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
:tuna:
Listen veeery caaarefuuuully:
They...each...have...a...different...message.
Which...one...do...you...refer...to?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, they're not "basically" that. Matt. and Lk. use Mark as a source. They also rely heavily on Q (as opposed to having "a few sayings 'tossed in.'") Each gospel has a completely different audience and theological thrust.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
:tuna:
Listen veeery caaarefuuuully:
They...each...have...a...different...message.
Which...one...do...you...refer...to?
ppppiiiiickkkk ooonnneee......
That wasn't obvious in th OP? The scary thing is that you're serious..
rational conversation really isn't your forte is it.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your words in the OP:
I've highlighted some problem spots for you, to make it easier. Nothing about "THE message of the gospelS" implies "pick one." What is implied, is that there is one message (take note of "the") communicated by all the gospels (note the plural), and that you want us to supply what we think that (implied "one") message is.
Thus far, your track record of supplying the obvious in your OPs is abysmal. The scary thing is, you think I'm delusional. Rational argument presentation really isn't your forte, is it?
My obvious answer, made clear in my first post (#38), is that there is no one, single message communicated by all gospels, which completely renders your OP a moot issue.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
@sojouner
notice the use of "messages" in the OP description.
you couldn't figure that out?
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the OP:
Notice the use of singular in the opening question. Then notice the use of plural in the instruction. Singular "message" implies one overarching message propagated by all gospels. Plural "messages" at the end (qualified by "more/less important") implies sub-messages of that one, overarching message.
My response is that there is no one message propagated by all gospels. Each gospel has a distinct message.
If that's not what you meant to write, then why didn't you write what you really meant?