Not everyone gets into Heaven

[AzA]

I'm not dismissing the reference, I'm saying that the verses "within you" can't simply mean that the Kingdom of God is within us when we are given other references that tells us it's a place.

I understand that the concept is unfamiliar to you. Try to hold some space for it nevertheless.

It's very similar to the image of the Holy Spirit living "in" people, though we are not hollow bottles to be rented out to jinns and wind. The "in" view is powerful in part because it points to an intimate and dynamic relationship sourced in identity rather than simply location. And that insight does not flow as naturally from the metaphor of migration that you currently prefer.

Migration metaphors contribute to understanding in their own way, but they are not the only image presented in the teachings of Jesus or any biblical apostle, prophet, or contemporary rabbi. Nor are they the standard by which all others must be measured.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I understand that the concept is unfamiliar to you. Try to hold some space for it nevertheless.

It's very similar to the image of the Holy Spirit living "in" people, though we are not hollow bottles to be rented out to jinns and wind. The "in" view is powerful in part because it points to an intimate and dynamic relationship sourced in identity rather than simply location. And that insight does not flow as naturally from the metaphor of migration that you currently prefer.

Migration metaphors contribute to understanding in their own way, but they are not the only image presented in the teachings of Jesus or any biblical apostle, prophet, or contemporary rabbi. Nor are they the standard by which all others must be measured.

I'm not unfamiliar with the concept. I just know that scripture speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven as a place also. So, therefore if one verse says it is "within you" and another verses says that it is a place where you receive eternal life, then I know that there are more than one aspect to the Kingdom of heaven.

And just like us knowing that scriptures speaks of The Father, The Son and the Spirit is within us (John 14:17, John 14:23) , we are also told that they are an actual Beings dwelling somewhere else. So, I wouldn't take the verses that says that the Godhead is within us as simply stating that is the only aspect of the Godhead or that's the only place in which they dwell. No, I would know that "hey, they are within us but they are also in another place" for scripture also says that
"let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know." John 14:1-4

 

[AzA]

Sounds like we've come to agreement.

Bless you.

 

[MattLangley]

The power in Christ is the fact that He lived sinless, He died for us and took upon our sins and then rose from the dead and defeated death. The salvation that He provides is that He died for our iniquities so that when we come to Him and have been washed for our sins, we are promised eternal life with Christ. If we do not believe in Him, we are condemned already.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Though this is how many people post-Christ have interpreted his life, there are many that do not as well, including me.

Jesus' teachings are centered around how we should live our lives and not about himself. They are about how he chose to live and he shared that with others, not about his death, about him being perfect, etc. Hence the synoptic gospels reflect this.

 

[AzA]

Jesus' teachings are centered around how we should live our lives and not about himself.

Beyond this, if our worldview is no longer geocentric, our theology shouldn't still be.

We now know that we have always been in space -- surrounded by it on every side and irrefutably part of it -- whether as a species we've had the technology to move out of our atmosphere or not. To have theology and cosmology that hasn't caught up with the last 500 years of knowledge is something like a grown man in short pants.

Speaking of, I was recently traumatized by the sight of the US President's knobbly knees; some smartypants took a picture of the dear man in shorts.

I didn't need to see that.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I would have to respectfully disagree. Though this is how many people post-Christ have interpreted his life, there are many that do not as well, including me.

Jesus' teachings are centered around how we should live our lives and not about himself. They are about how he chose to live and he shared that with others, not about his death, about him being perfect, etc. Hence the synoptic gospels reflect this.

While Christ was alive (as a man) He lived a perfect sinless life showing us there is a way that pleases God. Throughout His teachings He urged us to do the will of God. And one of the aspects of doing the well of God is to be righteous, and we are made righteous through the blood of Christ. But to say the power of Christ is only in His life, and forget about the power of His death and resurrection, is interesting.

He died because He was the perfect lamb, without His blood (without Him dying on that cross) then we could not be saved in the manner of which we are saved now. Without His resurrection, then He did not defeat death.

We are told that when we take the Lord's Supper, we proclaim His death. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death til He comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:12-28
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
The Last Enemy Destroyed

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.


Before I end this post, I want to make it clear that I do not assume in anyway that you think:
1.) Christ's death is not meaningful or powerful
2.) That He did not rise for the dead

What I am arguing against is the idea that the power of Christ is in His life ONLY. He lived a sinless life, that is powerful, but the reason for Him to come to earth and die was so that He can reconcile God and man and that was through His death. He rose again and is our mediator. Now, this is how I sum it up for myself: The power of Christ is that He lived sinless, He died perfect and He rose victorious.

 

[DavinMochrie]

He died because He was the perfect lamb

Part of the symbolisim is also when the killers, killed him.

He was executed by the religious conservatives because of his radical and liberal teachings.

That is part of his story, and that is part of the symbolism that must teach us something.

True Christians know today that legalism is a bad thing, and only supporting an interpretation of theology which helps rich middle class white people maintain their dominance in the world - is downright WRONG.

There are so many times when he challenged these type of people and their narrow theology..

Yet the majority of Christians today (at least 90% plus) would represent a modern version of the people he used to admonish.

They killed him, to 'conserve' their power in the church and 'conserve' their way of life that suited them and their interpretation of God.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Part of the symbolisim is also when the killers, killed him.

He was executed by the religious conservatives because of his radical and liberal teachings.

That is part of his story, and that is part of the symbolism that must teach us something.

True Christians know today that legalism is a bad thing, and only supporting an interpretation of theology which helps rich middle class white people maintain their dominance in the world - is downright WRONG.

There are so many times when he challenged these type of people and their narrow theology..

Yet the majority of Christians today (at least 90% plus) would represent a modern version of the people he used to admonish.

They killed him, to 'conserve' their power in the church and 'conserve' their way of life that suited them and their interpretation of God.

Question! Are we in agreement or are we in a disagreement?

 

[AzA]

Are we in agreement or are we in a disagreement?

Are you still assuming that only one of two options can be true?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Are you still assuming that only one of two options can be true?

There is a huge difference between saying that the power of Christ is in His life and that the power of Christ is in the life, death and resurrection. Sorry, I might have studied Psychology but I don't believe that everything is a combination of both opinions. I believe if you go to scripture you will find the correct answer (and it could be that we are both wrong). Also, as for the poster I quoted, I asked because I don't really understand his post. So, I'm curious if we were in an agreement or a disagreement. I believe that there are four options that can be true, do we agree or do we disagree? Do we agree on most and disagree on some or do we agree on some or disagree on most?

 

[MattLangley]

While Christ was alive (as a man) He lived a perfect sinless life showing us there is a way that pleases God. Throughout His teachings He urged us to do the will of God. And one of the aspects of doing the well of God is to be righteous, and we are made righteous through the blood of Christ. But to say the power of Christ is only in His life, and forget about the power of His death and resurrection, is interesting.

He died because He was the perfect lamb, without His blood (without Him dying on that cross) then we could not be saved in the manner of which we are saved now. Without His resurrection, then He did not defeat death.

We are told that when we take the Lord's Supper, we proclaim His death. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death til He comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:12-28
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
The Last Enemy Destroyed

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.


Before I end this post, I want to make it clear that I do not assume in anyway that you think:
1.) Christ's death is not meaningful or powerful
2.) That He did not rise for the dead

What I am arguing against is the idea that the power of Christ is in His life ONLY. He lived a sinless life, that is powerful, but the reason for Him to come to earth and die was so that He can reconcile God and man and that was through His death. He rose again and is our mediator. Now, this is how I sum it up for myself: The power of Christ is that He lived sinless, He died perfect and He rose victorious.

Understood, though after studying the writings and studies of Bible Scholars I have found that it is more likely that many of these ideals of Jesus that are considered "traditional" are in fact post-Christ ideals (post-Easter Jesus as Borg would call it). What people thought about Jesus and developed around the idea of him long after he was dead and gone.

If we trace back the dates of the writings of Jesus the gospels come up quite short. John comes up somewhere in the 2nd century (somewhere around 100 years after Jesus lived and died), The synoptic gospels shine through earlier with Mark being the oldest at most likely around 70 AD, with the other two being based off of Mark as well as other documents (one of those speculated as the "Q Document").

What's interesting is the most likely earliest writings we have are Paul's authentic letters. 7 out of the 13 are considered authentic and date back old enough to be considered authentic, the rest do not.

Paul didn't walk with Jesus (by his own words) and hence didn't write much about what Jesus directly said and did, moreso what Jesus meant to him.

The irony of this is the most authentic writings of Jesus we have are actually the traditions and ideals that began to develop after he lived and died. We don't have an accurate historical representation of what Jesus actually did...

We can, however, piece together a historical Jesus among the writings that do exist. Specifically the synoptic gospels. Mark being the oldest and then the things shared among Matthew and Luke (that are not found in Mark, hence coming from another text that is possibly older than the gospels) can give us an idea of who Jesus was without the post-Christ traditions.

Just reading Mark and then John you can see the differences in how they viewed Christ from around 70 AD to most likely somewhere around 115-130 A.D. Quite a distinctly different Jesus. If we strip away what people thought Jesus was and distill it down to what is most likely true about Jesus and what most likely came from his own mouth we keep most of his parables and lessons in the gospels. What we are left with is lessons about how to live our life in the here in now, how to live in the Kingdom of God that is "within" us, in how we live a good life in helping others and by not excluding others. By reaching out to those that are thought impure (sinner was a term they used for the impure).

We get a view of Jesus who rallied against the social injustices of his time, who is passionate about having a relationship with God. Now about following x rules to get into x afterlife, but experiencing God in the here and now and in helping others by not excluding them, by reaching out to those that are excluded.

What we don't get is a Jesus that ever implies he is dying for our sins, one that says he is God (most of this is taken from John which is most likely the least historically accurate of gospels), and definitely not one in which the center of his life and purpose is how he died. In fact his death is not the focal point at all, it simply is a representation of him standing up for his beliefs knowing the cost was his life. Much more powerful an image than a lamb to the slaughter for a sacrifice.

Jesus is our savior because he showed us how to have a relationship with God by experiencing God in all sorts of ways, including through the act of including others that normally would be excluded.

If we are saved truly by grace then we cannot be saved by our choice in believing in the ideal that he died for our sins. That would be being saved based on our own decision, hence not of grace. Unconditional love and forgiveness ceases to be unconditional when you put a condition on it... and saying you must believe and/or have faith in Christ is a condition (hence there lies the contradiction in such a belief).

Now you are welcome to hold to whatever belief you want, that is your right Though I absolutely disagree that Jesus was perfect and he was a lamb sacrificed for us in that sense. In another sense he was a lamb sacrificed for us, he died showing us how to stand up for our beliefs and died for not compromising. That is the ultimate statement of faith.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I'm going to ask you to do me a favor, and that is to just think of this: Does it make sense to look to Bible Scholars (whom is not only looking at this through hindsight but also came hundreds to thousands of years later), and allow them to tell you about scripture? And what I mean is this, the analysis that these bible scholars (and let's just say, I don't know of these bible scholars credentials so I'm not trying to imply anything about them) are giving, is based on secondary information (if that). They are looking back at scripture and giving you a post-Christ information. To listen to these bible scholars, whom were no where near the time of Christ and are in post-Christ days, tell you that all the gospel accounts were not as authentic as Mark's account because they were written in a post-Christ environment seems a little backwards.

The best way to understand Christ is through the writings of those whom were there. And the writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all walked along with Christ. They give first hand accounts. And as for Paul, he was there when Christ was still living--he was not a follower of Christ at that time, but He knew of Christ and He was also there when Stephen was stoned to death. We are told in scripture that it was Christ Himself whom came to Paul and told him that he would be a minister to the Gentiles. But the one whom wrote scripture is the Holy Spirit and He did it by inspiring these men. I am not a biblical scholar in any sense of the word, but I learn all of this through the Scripture (through those whom knew of Christ, through the Spirit whom knows Christ--through first hand accounts).

Now, as for only looking at Christ through Mark's eyes, you've got to remember that all the gospels were written accounts but all the apostles was spreading the gospel because that was what Christ commanded them to do. Mark might have been the oldest written account (and again, I'm not sure how accurate that was but let's just go with it) but being the oldest account doesn't mean it was the most authentic. They all were authentic, they all collaborate each other, and when one expands in one area, another might be silent but it doesn't mean it wasn't authentic.

You spoke about grace in your post..but do you not realize that Grace through Christ is spoken of in John (the gospel whom you considered to be the least historical account) and that the idea of grace is expanded all throughout the books in the New Testament. As for Christ dying for our sins, not only were we told in Romans, Hebrews about it, we are also told that will be one of the signs of the Messiah in Isaiah 53:1-6 says
"And has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Christ came to teach us, that is true, but He also spoke of His death, resurrection and even His second coming--He also gives us parables that describes what God wants from us. There are rules that He has placed, and He tells us that if we love Him then follow His commandments (John 14). He instituted the Lord's Supper (and speaks of His blood and flesh which is shed for many-Mark 14:25, when He went into the Garden of Galilee to pray for the cup to pass from Him but wanted to do the will of God, to die on the cross (His blood to be shed for us)...and for the Gospel of John 3 that tells us that God loved the word that He gave us His only Son and that we are saved through Him--but it was Christ speaking, those are His words. And He tells us what is going to happen when He comes again. The gospel message does not begin or end with Mark, it is throughout the entire bible.

As for being saved by grace and that God's love is unconditional, well, God's love is unconditional and we are saved by grace, but a relationship with Him is not possible if we do not do as He have commanded (and we see that throughout the Old Testament, where God loved Israel but when they disobeyed Him, He punished them if they would not repent to Him). It's not whether God loves us, He has already gave us His Son, but whether we believe in Him and love Him enough to do what He have asked us to do.) Jesus is our Savior because He was perfect in His life, because of His death and His resurrection. If He did not die the way He died, shedding the blood for our sins then He would not be our Savior. But the good news is that He did and He rose, and He is our King and Savior.

Seeing then that we have a great High priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 4:14-16

You should not by any means look at my words, you should go to scripture and read what it says for I am only human and make many mistakes, but go to God's words and make sure that whatever someone tells us, that scripture backs it up.

 

[MattLangley]

Again having to do something to receive forgiveness is a condition which would make it cease to be unconditional forgiveness. So if you believe in conditional forgiveness from God then so be it, that is indeed what it is. If there were indeed no conditions then we would have it no matter what. For example, lets say you committed a crime against me in which I could hold a punishment against you, say 10 days in jail. If I forgive you and waive that punishment that does not mean you have to accept it, though you still will not go to jail for 10 days for it since I have forgiven and waived it. That case could be considered unconditional forgiveness, you don't have to accept it to get the benefit since it's unconditional.

Now by believing you have to accept Jesus' forgiveness to not suffer the punishment is conditional forgiveness. That would be like in the previous case me asking you to accept the forgiveness and then I will waive to punishment, if you decline you still get punished since you did not meet the condition.

If forgiveness is unconditional we will be waived of the punishment no matter what, otherwise it isn't unconditional, it's the reality of the situation.

In response to your comments about the Bible Scholars (which there are a huge amount with very good credentials that support what I said), sure it's a post Christ set of thoughts. Everything we think about Christ is post-Christ. Until you can get a time machine to go back and walk with Christ yourself you are trusting numerous post Christ sources... Every source gets modified and changed based on the perspective of the person, this is observed in everything else (why a witness is not that great evidence, two witnesses can see the same thing and believe two different things were accomplished by it) in reality, why would it not be the same for Jesus and those who wrote those texts?

Hence we must use the heads God gave us and seek the truth (not sit in blind ignorance) about the validity of what is said and when it was said. It's about who said what in what context. Most of the Bible is the product of the post-Christ Christian communities, about what they believed about him. This blatantly evident if you compare John vs. Mark.

 

[MattLangley]

btw it's not that I don't understand your viewpoint, I do. I grew up the son of a Southern Baptist pastor. I grew up embracing all of those same beliefs. When I got to the point in which I could think for myself I looked to validate those beliefs outside of my own bias. I have found those beliefs are without merit outside of there own bias. This is my own conclusion (as well as the conclusion of many others). This doesn't have to be yours, but by believing God excludes those who choose not to hold into some sort of archaic sacrificial belief in a man who lived 2,000 years ago in which we have no texts that go back that far is a bit ridiculous in my book (the oldest text fragments we have go back to nearly 100 years after Jesus' death, not exactly super reliable). Believe what you will, just don't exclude others, that is exactly what Jesus rallied against.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Okay, let's put it this way....show me in scripture where salvation is said to be unconditional and then I will understand your point. We are told that salvation is by grace, we are told how to be saved, we are told that baptism washes away our sins and that we have put on Christ. We are told that if we love Christ then we will follow His commandments. We are told that if we do not forgive others than God will not forgive us (Matthew 6:14-15). I don't know of any scripture that says that forgiveness (and in the way you speak of forgiveness, I will use the word salvation, hence the reason I put it in my first sentence) is unconditional.

And as for our time machine, it's the bible.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Hence we must use the heads God gave us and seek the truth (not sit in blind ignorance) about the validity of what is said and when it was said. It's about who said what in what context. Most of the Bible is the product of the post-Christ Christian communities, about what they believed about him. This blatantly evident if you compare John vs. Mark.

Okay, I can't see the evidence when comparing John to Mark, do you mind showing it to me?

 

[MattLangley]

Okay, I can't see the evidence when comparing John to Mark, do you mind showing it to me?

I will post the relevant verses later if you like (I've already spent too much time during the middle of the day while at work). Here are a few rough things. John focuses on verses relating Jesus to God (many of the arguments for the Trinity come from John, with only a couple verses pulled elsewhere), the focus on the spirit and it's interaction, Jesus being the only way. The beginning of John as well, which suggest Jesus is the Word of God come flesh, which is a parallel to the Old Testament Proverbs personification of God as the Wisdom (though surprisingly it's a female personification in Proverbs). Primarily the focus of these things whereas the synoptic gospels (Mark being the best example believed to be the oldest) don't focus on these aspects. This is why the first three gospels are called they synoptic gospels, since John has a different focus and somewhat different message (the typically argument is the same message from a different perspective).

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I will post the relevant verses later if you like (I've already spent too much time during the middle of the day while at work). Here are a few rough things. John focuses on verses relating Jesus to God (many of the arguments for the Trinity come from John, with only a couple verses pulled elsewhere), the focus on the spirit and it's interaction, Jesus being the only way. The beginning of John as well, which suggest Jesus is the Word of God come flesh, which is a parallel to the Old Testament Proverbs personification of God as the Wisdom (though surprisingly it's a female personification in Proverbs). Primarily the focus of these things whereas the synoptic gospels (Mark being the best example believed to be the oldest) don't focus on these aspects. This is why the first three gospels are called they synoptic gospels, since John has a different focus and somewhat different message (the typically argument is the same message from a different perspective).

While I understand that there are differences in how they approach the message, the message is not contradictory. And You are right, the gospels start at different places when speaking about Christ, but they do not contradict each other. I don't see how one gospel gives information that is post-Christ (meaning the information was given through the points of view of someone whom was not there during the time of Christ) and the other gives information that shows that He was in their midst . And FYI, what I see through scripture and as you are reading the gospel it seems that they are first hand accounts.

And as for the "argument of the Trinity" most people generally go to Genesis and work their way through the Old Testament and then go into the New Testament, but even if someone uses John (hopefully correctly) to showcase the Trinity, John is not in anyway incongruent with what Matthew, Mark and Luke says. Yes there are parallels between the wisdom in Proverbs 8 and the Word (Christ) in John 1 but wisdom did not say that she is God but that "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old (Proverbs 8:22), but remember in Proverbs 1 and following King Solomon is showing us why it is wise to know wisdom and he's describing wisdom in a way. Whereas in John 1 it tells us that the Word is God, wisdom is never described as being God but that it is good to be possessed because it is from God (and again, I can be wrong about wisdom, I'm not really well versed in wisdom and I don't think about it much). But if the reason you said this is to show a contradiction, I don't see it.

Now as for the gospels being called synoptic and John is not, again that is something that we man came up with. The division is our own man-made doctrine, with or without it, Scripture still stands.

 

[MattLangley]

While I understand that there are differences in how they approach the message, the message is not contradictory. And You are right, the gospels start at different places when speaking about Christ, but they do not contradict each other. I don't see how one gospel gives information that is post-Christ (meaning the information was given through the points of view of someone whom was not there during the time of Christ) and the other gives information that shows that He was in their midst . And FYI, what I see through scripture and as you are reading the gospel it seems that they are first hand accounts.

And as for the "argument of the Trinity" most people generally go to Genesis and work their way through the Old Testament and then go into the New Testament, but even if someone uses John (hopefully correctly) to showcase the Trinity, John is not in anyway incongruent with what Matthew, Mark and Luke says. Yes there are parallels between the wisdom in Proverbs 8 and the Word (Christ) in John 1 but wisdom did not say that she is God but that "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old (Proverbs 8:22), but remember in Proverbs 1 and following King Solomon is showing us why it is wise to know wisdom and he's describing wisdom in a way. Whereas in John 1 it tells us that the Word is God, wisdom is never described as being God but that it is good to be possessed because it is from God (and again, I can be wrong about wisdom, I'm not really well versed in wisdom and I don't think about it much). But if the reason you said this is to show a contradiction, I don't see it.

Now as for the gospels being called synoptic and John is not, again that is something that we man came up with. The division is our own man-made doctrine, with or without it, Scripture still stands.

We came up with a lot of things, including the gospels. They are techs undeniably written by human hand. Now you can choose to elevate them beyond just that or not, that's your choice, nonetheless as texts they are subject to the same scrutiny any ancient texts are. Again it is found most likely that Mark was the first gospel written about 70 AD with Matthew and Luke being written with Mark as a source (roughly a decade or two later), with John coming in last around 115-130 AD (using the synoptic gospels as a source).

I never said there was anything contradictory in them, since they were written using eachother as a source

Mark -> Matthew-|
-> Luke --> John

then they wouldn't contradict, at least not in a general sense of concepts. They do, however, present Jesus with very different ideals. This makes a lot more sense once you realize that John was written decades later.

In the end you can reject textual criticism against the Bible, you can even reject what you see in front of your face to hold to a certain belief, though that doesn't mean everyone does. In the end this is dragging into something off topic. There are many different views and interpretations of the exact same pieces of literature. Some view them as factual literal, some view them as metaphoric-historical, some view them completely different. Even among the same views in that category people disagree. Not everyone who believes they were factual-literal hold to the trinity as well as various other doctrines (Calvinism vs. Arminiaism, etc.).

In the end not everyone believes the same thing so we all must come to a personal choice whether we will suggest that those who don't believe what you believe will be excluded or not (in life, after life in hell, after life in something else if you don't believe in hell). I personally do not and that is what I rally against. Hold to your own beliefs all you want but don't exclude people just because they don't believe the same doctrine or ideals. Jesus reached out to many, many that were impure or the untouchables of that society. He didn't reach out to damn them or to exclude them, but to show them that they too had good in them, that the current system of requirements that excluded them was wrong, that if we choose to be united and support eachother it doesn't matter if we have specific beliefs that are different.

 

[AzA]

I believe that there are four options that can be true, do we agree or do we disagree? Do we agree on most and disagree on some or do we agree on some or disagree on most?

Right -- and this is a more dynamic suggestion than the one you first proposed.
Appreciate it.