Thursday, February 19, 2015
Jesus First post.
My experience so far reading Jesus by John Dominic Crossan has been very different from that of reading the Gita. The Gita was an entirely new experience and my first time being analytically exposed to Hindu Litterateur. At this point in my life, I have been overly exposed Christianity and the study of the Gospel. At this point, I have been presented to every side of the gospel, but this one. The author captures the historical incorrectness of each Gospel. After I read the first chapter I was automatically presented with a world of questions. My biggest questions where directed toward how the author Spoke about Matthew and Luke in term of their interpretation of the birth of Jesus. I never realized how different the text actually was. Did this baffle anyone else? Comment below :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, this was a totally new perspective from what I have known for most of my life. I always knew there were some errors from the amount of times the parts had been translated, and that they were not written with total accuracy, but I had no idea just how much room for error there was because of the way it was written.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important not to think of deviations from history in the gospels as errors. They would only be errors if the gospel writers were trying to write history, which they were not. Rather, the contents of the gospels reflect their communities' differing theologies -- their various understandings of what Jesus' life and death meant.
ReplyDeleteI understand this now after our converstaion in class about the gospels and how they arent myths.
ReplyDelete