Christians, can't you understand that earliest writing source about the teaching of Christ was written by Poul 20 years after Jesus death?
How do we know that they didn't mess things up?
- PubliusLv 72 months ago
Oh, I'm sure that all the New Testament writers got some things wrong, but look at the preponderance of the evidence. The Bible still holds together very well in the broad strokes.
- keyjonaLv 73 months ago
Paul did mess things up. Paul's letters are not Gospel. Paul was never a disciple or an apostle of Jesus, and all 3 different versions of his Damascus RD. story are fake. He wrongly thought an Apostle was greater than a Prophet which is why he chose to call himself an apostle. Paul's writings came before the Gospel was officially published.
Simon Peter Barjona Provided Andrew Barjona a daily log of Jesus' Ministry: GOSPEL "Q". After Jesus's crucifixion in 30A.D., Peter taught the Gospel from memory for over 37 years. Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark from memory prior to his death in 67A.D.; Mark published it in 68A.D. The Gospel of Mark was the only Gospel published in Aramaic, and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70A.D.. The 5th and final scroll of Mark was destroyed by fire in Syria in 69A.D.; Luke later added a bogus 12 verse ending, Mark 16:9-20. A disciple of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark and "Q" to write Matthew's Gospel. "Matthew" was published in Greek in 71A.D..
- UserLv 73 months ago
That's simplicity itself to understand
despite your poor grammar and spelling.
Of course it's not TRUE
but it IS easy to understand.
- Anonymous3 months ago
He did mess it up. Just about every story he grabbed from local legends and put together in one. It's like those fast casual fusion restaurants.
Which in of itself isn't a big deal. If what he wrote pointed to higher truths it doesn't really matter if it is a historical truth. Chances are you have watched at least one Shakespeare play but I am not willing to bet you sat down and studied the actual subject of that play (if you did congrats on being a nerd). You could for example watch Macbeth and appreciate the truth of what unchecked ambition leads to or you could spend 10 boring minutes reading the wiki article on him.
If there was a historical Jesus or if he said those things or did those things matters to historians and them only. For practical purposes the question is if the morality that is attributed to him is worth following or nor and how to follow it best.
The same thing happens in many faiths. Buddhism for example one of the most important sutras (heart) is very unlikely to be quotes the man said but it really isn't important the content matters and who cares if it was written 400 years later?
Still not convinced? Ok that's fair. Let's considered a hypothetical. Say the sermon on the mound never happened. Say it's like the opening scene in the movie Patton. A speech he never gave but heavily based on what he did write and say. So in this situation the NT besides this one tiny part is 100% true. Would you still be a Christian? Does this one speech that almost no one would have heard anyhow really matter that much that you would lose your faith? Really? Even if it was cobbled together from things he did say?
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Chances68Lv 73 months ago
In point of fact, Paul was busy trying to sell his fairy tale story about Jesus among the Greeks, and would have been under pressure to make up outrageous claims in order to attract attention.
- God of ThunderLv 73 months ago
And Paul didn't know anything about what Jesus taught. He never listened to Jesus when he was alive, he never learned from the apostles, he just made stuff up.
"Because it is consistent and comparable with all things in the bible." Yes, because not only are Paul's writings prominently displayed, but Paul's followers eventually took over the church and decided the canon.
- Católico RomanoLv 43 months ago
We Catholics strongly believe that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel shortly after the events. And the other gospels came after St. Matthew's just as quickly.
You can invent other justifications, but not related to dates. Things happened, and immediately the gospels were written, there is no doubt about it. 2 or maybe 3 years after the death of Christ was already there, at least, that of Saint Matthew.
And if there was controversy among the apostles about the writings of St. Matthew, we would know.
I don't speak english very well. If you find any errors, it's because English isn't my language. Thank you for understand.
- 3 months ago
Because it is consistent and comparable with all things in the bible
the only difference is that Paul's audience was the gentile world.
things like homosexuality didn't really exist in Judea for offenders were Stoned - Gods (Jesus') law. Where as in Rome and Greece it was rampant
Funny that 99.9% of all people who try and dismiss Paul are gay or gay wanna bes or gay supporters
2 Timothy 3:16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,