HOME | DD
kevron2001 — The Four Gospels
#artwork #bible #book #christian #gospel #john #luke #mark #matthew
Published: 2017-01-04 22:43:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 10825; Favourites: 190; Downloads: 97
Redirect to original
Description
An all-day long project of showing the difference between the four gospels, with different audiences and themes. Hope this a useful tool!
Related content
Comments: 62
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice. My own quibble is that I would argue for a pre-70 AD date for John. But that's obviously a very minor detail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is a brief and informative (and visually pleasing) guide! Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this, it's very modernly done as well as useful for newcomers to the faith; but also a helpful reminder for those who are mature in their faith, too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm impressed that you can name them all.
Most Christians i know can't lol
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Cool stuff, it's always more importat to look at why the gospels were written as opposed to what they had to say on a textual level.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was pleasantly surprised by this, especially that you noted there are actually specific audiences for each book, especially Matthew. Nice work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is great! Good for an exegesis, basic summary or introductions to the Gospel
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about the numerous contradictions? That would've been interesting to see.
It is also very much doubtful that Matthew was an actual eyewitness. There are numerous indications of quite the contrary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
There are no actual contradictions. Also, saying that's matthew was not an actual eye-witness was not a good argument to began with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes it was - it isn't an argument, it's a fact.
And if you willfully choose to remain ignorant of the numerous contradictions, that's your problem, not mine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well you are pathetic and stupid. It's not a fact, it's just a biased viewpoint where you guys like to parrot. No it wasn't.
Enthusiasts don't accept these "contradictions" because they read better and actually understand the point, while you are too illiterate to get it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hahaha! It's really cute how you christians turn to insults so quickly merely because I disagree with your insane ideology.
Yes, it is a fact. I suggest you read up about it, that gospel has been written over a century after the fact, so the author cannot have been an eyewitness.
"Enthusiasts" you are, yes? How quaint.
What is there to understand about one gospel saying one thing, and another gospel saying something that directly and immediately opposes the first one?
Have you ever heard about the law of non-contradiction?
Besides, one would think that since your "god" is supposedly omniscient and the bible is supposedly his word, that there would be one version of events, not multiple ones that contradict each other quite heavily.
Now, of course, I know that christians like to interpret, reinterpret, cherrypick and warp texts and the like until what they managed to drag up kinda matches what they want to believe, but that's an intellecutally dishonest practice. Everything can be interpreted in a way that makes it favorable to your particular ideology if you try hard enough. That doesn't mean the actual text agrees with you, nor does it make you right. It only makes you creative at deluding yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that's you are, you're an idiot for using No True Scotsman fallacies thinking we know "nothing"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You should actually read what I write instead of applying blanket statements, you know?
Engage me on an even playing field and at least halfway competently, or just give it up and leave it be, because with posts like this you merely prove me right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I already have, and this still doesn't be prove you right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you really haven't.
And yes, it does, because you are incapable to even deal with criticism of your belief system on an objective, rational level, instead choosing to insult me and trying to defeat my arguments by ignoring them.
It doesn't work like this. What you're doing is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly to yourself.
You are willfully deluding yourself. And you're ignorant of that fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes I have and no you wheren't. If you really have that much of of knowledge, (unlike you claim) you are the one who's wrong, I am far from being deluded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, so if I have the knowledge, I'm wrong?
Yeah, that makes sense.
See, refusing to accept your own delusion is usually part of being deluded.
You believe in ancient bronze-age fairytales about a mean old dude in the sky who created an infinite universe and cares whether or not you masturbate.
OF COURSE you are deluded!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, no!
And of course, this is a strawman fallacy you are using that no one should accept your idiotic arrogance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That sentence didn't even make any sense.
But no, it wasn't a strawman.
Everything I said is part of what you actually believe.
Have you never reflected on your own beliefs?
Have you never seen how patently absurd they are??
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, that IS a strawman.
No I wasn't, you just don't get it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not.
You weren't what?
I didn't even say you were something. I asked you whether or not you have ever critically reflected on your own beliefs.
It is obvious that you have not. You should.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We can keep going back and forth like this, but I don't care to.
The point is, you keep simply ignoring all the questions that seem to be too uncomfortable to face.
So let me ask again, and I am quite honest about this:
Have you ever critically reflected on your own beliefs? Yes or no?
It's a simple enough question, you should be able to answer it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So let me ask again, and I am quite honest about this:
Have you ever critically reflected on your own beliefs? Yes or no?
It's a simple enough question, you should be able to answer it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obviously you have not, else you would be able to answer a simple yes or no question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I obviously HAVE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, and you prove me right with every consecutive answer.
I posed you a question you either cannot answer, or will not because you know the answer will expose your hypocrisy.
Maybe even to yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I've already know that it speaks in a different way than you think. Any enthusiast would understand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That answer makes absolutely no sense and doesn't relate to the question I asked in any way whatsoever.
You think that just because you call yourself an "enthusiast" (not the right word for this context by the way)
you know everything and your views of your own beliefs are beyond and above any reproach or criticism?
Because they're not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe you should think again.
Because they ARE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nothing is above reproach or criticism.
Nothing at all.
In claiming that something is, you automatically admit defeat before any criticism, because you make it more than obvious that you cannot defend your own position on it.
A good, solid, valid position can withstand criticism and close scrutiny. Which is actually what makes it good, solid and valid. Yours isn't any of these things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's what you think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. That is fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, that's what you think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We can continue this childish game of "No you" for all eternity, but I have better things to do.
I made actual, solid points. You made nothing.
I mean, seriously, what are you, 12?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You hardly even made any actual, solid points, all you did is being strawman fallacies to these things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I did not, and you can claim the contrary as much as you like.
And most of all - I asked you a simple question about a dozen or so times, and you tried to wind yourself out of answering it any way you could, like a worm.
I wonder why that is ... although I do have a pretty good guess.
In any case, I will end this here. You have more than proven to me your massive intellectual dishonesty and refusal to engage on the topic in any meaningful
or rational way, so I see no point in continuing childish nonsense like what you're doing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, you have.
You pretty much have made a lot of biased guesses when it comes to theology.
Again that's what you pretty much assumed when it comes to religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. You see, there are easy ways to tell if someone is being intellectually dishonest.
Like, say, if they try to wind their way out of answering a simple question again and again.
You did this. Multiple times. Ergo, you're intellectually dishonest about your religion.
Elementary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you would have a lot of time to gthink about other things. Yes, I have reflect on my beliefs, but I soon get it.
And I thought you are getting tired of me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>