Bible verese

The Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense, and are primarily theological in nature. They present three levels of tradition: remembered sayings and actions of Jesus, doctrines of the early church, and the specific message of the evangelist to his community.

They present many stories that were probably based on what people remembered Jesus as having done. Some of these stories may have been invented later, to told as the sort of thing Jesus did and said. None on the evangelists was one of Jesus' followers during his lifetime, they had only the accounts of others to base their stories on; the earliest date possible for Mark, which is the earliest Gospel, is in the 60s.

The Gospels also present doctrine that was adopted by the early church, but would not have been part of Jesus' teachings. For example, Mark 10:11-12 would not have made sense to Jesus' Jewish audience. Jewish law at that time did not permit wives to divorce their husbands. However, Mark was writing to a Roman audience, and Roman law did permit women to initiate divorce.

And the Gospels present a specific message to the community for which they were written. Mark's community was being persecuted, so he ended his Gospel with an empty tomb, Mark 16:9-20 do not appear in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. The message was that while Jesus feels absent now, it will not always be so. Matthew's and John's communities had recently been cast out of the synagogues (this did not happen in Jesus' time, Judaism did not reject Jesus' followers until after the destruction of the Temple) and so they are filled with invective against the Jews.

Ultimately, we cannot know whether any of Jesus' sayings in the Gospels can actually be attributed to him, though they are likely mostly consistent with the message of his preaching. The interpretation of many of his parables, especially, is considered by most biblical scholars not to be the original interpretation, but one created by the evangelist for his community.

 

They can throw all the bible verses they want in my face for all I care. I neither recognize the authority of their book, nor do I fear they're silly threat of hell.

But I can see your point though. I have spent a lot of time studying the bible when I was a teenager, and even studied theological subjects for two years. I am quite capable of running a theological discussion. But even the most highly trained theologian stumble in debates when they not only have to base their arguments on scripture, but have to argue their position in face of full-blown reality.

Discussing theology is only relevant when you share the same premise that the bible is authoritative. That premise itself is an assertion, and any line of arguments stand and fall on that no matter how internally consistent the theology may be.