4 ms·

There has always been a lot of argument about the gospels, as they put forth a radical idea that is unacceptable to many. However, just because people argue ab

There has always been a lot of argument about the gospels, as they put forth a radical idea that is unacceptable to many. However, just because people argue about it does not take away from the claims made there, or the internal consistency of the accounts. Are there claims of inconsistency? Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection. Monty Python was a genius comedy troupe, but all you have to do is look at the sad life that Cleese ultimately led to see they may not be a source of inspiration for how you should lead your life. The disciples of Jesus on the other hand were, with one exception, killed for their beliefs. The one exception being John, who died in exile on an island.

moogleii 7y ago
"Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection." Please elaborate.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  This statement is in response to the broad claim of inconsistencies in the accounts. If anyone needs to elaborate, it is the original claimant. Is there a claimed inconsistency you would seek to have explained?
  - bediger4000 7y ago
    Nowhere did I say they were inconsistent - merely that different gospels have different stories, or different versions of the same story, and they appear in different orders. This is beyond dispute. It's also not something that christianity as a whole makes clear. The Gospel of John is radically different than the other 3 gospels. You can see that by reading maybe a page of each one. Beyond dispute.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  He can't because it's not true. Any reading of Matthew/Mark/Luke will net you a set of stories that are similar, but every story is not included in all 3 gospels, and the order is a bit different. Wikipedia maybe says it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels > they include many of the same stories, often in a similar > sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. > They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. This is reasonably well known among scholars, but not super common knowledge. I believe this is clearly what Cleese was complaining about, and what the Bishop tried to gloss over by claiming that knowledge is commonly imparted by religious education. There's also things like the "Johannine Comma" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma), and the ending of Mark (https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110430123606AA6O1GG https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201104301236...), if you want to dig deeper.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bediger4000 7y ago
Not the point, thank you for playing. John Cleese claimed that a "public school" education netted him a negative impression of christianity. Cleese referred to the received christianity as garbage. Cleese went on to remark that upon looking into the Gospels, one finds that there's a good deal of confusion about who wrote them, when they were written, and even in what language and what city. This is true, by the way. The Bishop of Bath and Wells or whatever brushed Cleese's observations off by claiming that Cleese just didn't pay attention, that all that was laid out in front of everyone. I sincerely doubt that any of that is front and center, because that (after of course, The 7 Day Creation) is the main thing about christianity. Admitting that the foundational documents are of obvious human construction, contain non-unified views of Jesus, and don't even have all the same stories in the same order blows a huge hole in the side of organized christianity. The Bishop of Bath and Wells (or whatever) was definitely lying and trying to cover that aspect of the new testament up.
bediger4000 7y ago
> sad life that Cleese ultimately led Ummm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Seems like a pretty interesting life to me, but you know, facts don't matter any more. He's still alive too, which the "ultimately led" part makes me think you're thinking of someone else, Graham Chapman, perhaps? Also, bit of a diversionary argument that the author of the movie's life (sad or otherwise) is a source of inspiration for anything. Cleese was arguing with upper crust britons. The points that Cleese made, and that were ignored by said britons in favor of putting words in Cleese's mouth are the issue here. I also think that the (semi-legendary) fates of the apostoles is also diversionary. Those fates, true or false, fact or legend, really don't have too much to do with how Cleese and Palin's arguments were treated by the Bishop and Muggeridge.

moogleii 7y ago

"Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection." Please elaborate.

tomohawk 7y ago
This statement is in response to the broad claim of inconsistencies in the accounts. If anyone needs to elaborate, it is the original claimant. Is there a claimed inconsistency you would seek to have explained?
- bediger4000 7y ago
  Nowhere did I say they were inconsistent - merely that different gospels have different stories, or different versions of the same story, and they appear in different orders. This is beyond dispute. It's also not something that christianity as a whole makes clear. The Gospel of John is radically different than the other 3 gospels. You can see that by reading maybe a page of each one. Beyond dispute.
bediger4000 7y ago
He can't because it's not true. Any reading of Matthew/Mark/Luke will net you a set of stories that are similar, but every story is not included in all 3 gospels, and the order is a bit different. Wikipedia maybe says it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels > they include many of the same stories, often in a similar > sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. > They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. This is reasonably well known among scholars, but not super common knowledge. I believe this is clearly what Cleese was complaining about, and what the Bishop tried to gloss over by claiming that knowledge is commonly imparted by religious education. There's also things like the "Johannine Comma" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma), and the ending of Mark (https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110430123606AA6O1GG https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201104301236...), if you want to dig deeper.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bediger4000 7y ago

Not the point, thank you for playing. John Cleese claimed that a "public school" education netted him a negative impression of christianity. Cleese referred to the received christianity as garbage. Cleese went on to remark that upon looking into the Gospels, one finds that there's a good deal of confusion about who wrote them, when they were written, and even in what language and what city. This is true, by the way. The Bishop of Bath and Wells or whatever brushed Cleese's observations off by claiming that Cleese just didn't pay attention, that all that was laid out in front of everyone. I sincerely doubt that any of that is front and center, because that (after of course, The 7 Day Creation) is the main thing about christianity. Admitting that the foundational documents are of obvious human construction, contain non-unified views of Jesus, and don't even have all the same stories in the same order blows a huge hole in the side of organized christianity. The Bishop of Bath and Wells (or whatever) was definitely lying and trying to cover that aspect of the new testament up.

bediger4000 7y ago

> sad life that Cleese ultimately led Ummm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Seems like a pretty interesting life to me, but you know, facts don't matter any more. He's still alive too, which the "ultimately led" part makes me think you're thinking of someone else, Graham Chapman, perhaps? Also, bit of a diversionary argument that the author of the movie's life (sad or otherwise) is a source of inspiration for anything. Cleese was arguing with upper crust britons. The points that Cleese made, and that were ignored by said britons in favor of putting words in Cleese's mouth are the issue here. I also think that the (semi-legendary) fates of the apostoles is also diversionary. Those fates, true or false, fact or legend, really don't have too much to do with how Cleese and Palin's arguments were treated by the Bishop and Muggeridge.