To Peter.

I understand what your saying about the different writtings being given to a different community audience. I've heard this theory befor and it makes sense with concerning dome of the termology used and examples given that would be more relatable to each community. Based on that, it is entirely possible that one gospel was focused for Jews and has contained more detail on Jesus's heritage through His Mary, or through Joseph Mary's husband. And why the difference in terms for Kingdom of God, instead of Kingdom of Heaven based on gentile audiences or Jewish audiences for that gospel.

However what I don't agree with is that these differences are that one detail is accurate, and another is not. Reading all four gospels brings in more detail to fill the story of Jesus's life and ministry. The details over lap eachother not replace each other. At least that's my understanding. The gospels offer different details on the same or simular events, without condriction.

For me the idea that each gospel was told for a different audience doesn't take away from the teachings, the events, or the theology that can be based on them. They can still be true without hesitation of saying this is an exergration, or that is a legend made for a point, but never occured. These are points that you've held though. A trust in theological study with the history behind it, more then the trust in God, being able to be truthful, accurate, and still convey the messages that can be gained throughout history without further editing.

Not-now Soon,
Don't get me wrong. All Scripture is inspired by the holy spirit and is hence inerrant. However, a distinction has to be made. It is not inerrant as tested by rational positivism that tells us that if an event did not happen as related in Scripture, then it holds no truth. Scripture is inerrant in the spirit, it bears witness to the Word of God even when various gospels are directed to different contexts. The NT is a unity in that it all points to Christ. For us to see this we must give away any seeking for evidence. Seeking evidence is not faith, it is a search for security, a foundation upon which we may understand the world and build our lives. That is a form of idolatry. To be baptised into the death of Christ is to die to such urgent need for a secure place, backed up by evidence.
Pete

Toni,

<<Can he [God] create a rock so big he can't lift it, then?>>

With respect, this is a question from one who doesn't understand the grandeur of the universe and Who created it.

Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?

God is the one who created the entire universe, including the first human beings, and you have such short-sightedness that you ask a trifling question about God's ability to lift rocks that He created.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is a pointless question to ask if God is capable of creating a rock so large he couldn't lift it.

Your view of God is way too small:

"He (God) is the one who made the mountains.
He created the wind.
He lets people know his thoughts.
He changes the darkness into dawn.
He walks over the mountains of the earth.
His name is Yahweh, Lord God All-Powerful" (Amos 4:13).

And you dare to ask the Creator of the mountains if He can create rock so large He can't lift it. His omnipotence is beyond your and my comprehension.

Alan B,

<<Many things in our modern bible are clearly invention, created to conform to a particular narrative. Rather than the plain unvarnished truth. And given that is so, why does any of a 2 thousand-year-old mythological legend have to have any basis in actual fact? And why do we need to believe these manmade inventions with such fervour?>>

What are the examples to which you refer?

Since you mention the sacrament of confession, the alleged seal, and celibacy, are these the examples from the Bible that are ‘clearly invention’ to which you refer? Or, do you have some other examples in mind?

Seems like you have some bias against the biblical content with your use of language such as ‘the alleged Messiah’. What evidence is needed for you to move from regarding Jesus as the 'alleged Messiah' to the actual Messiah, Son of God, third person of the Trinity?

<<Why not the irrefutable mighty truth? And no worthier goal! And start with those things we can prove as irrefutable fact, and that love is stronger and more enduring that hate.>>

From where do you obtain ‘irrefutable mighty truth’? What evidence from history gives us access to 100% irrefutable facts?

Do we have 'irrefutable mighty truth' of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and Pol Pot's genocide?

//this is a question from one who doesn't understand the grandeur of the universe and Who created it.//

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'"
-Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

As a pantheist, I believe that the Creation and the Creator are indistinguishable. And with respect, as somebody with a decent education in the sciences, I think I have a better understanding of the grandeur of Nature - or God if you prefer, since no meaningful distinction can be made - than those who prefer to sit and gawp at God/Nature like fools.

To Peter.

Here it is again. The worry that I see from a brother in faith. You are being dishonest with yourself and robing yourself from trusting God even more, based on whether you understand what's written. What you've said of idolaters towards evidence, can also be applied to idolatry based on rejecting God out of lack of understanding.

I do look at evidence to confirm and strengthen my faith. But I've held onto my faith before there is evidence to back up one point, and before I can understand another point fully. The evidence I see and know only helps strengthen my trust in what God has declared that I haven't seen first hand.

What is better then what comes from God? If God says something, then it is reliable. That reliability doesn't falter when tested. At least it hasn't for me. Faith in God doesn't go away because you believe what the bible says is true (both in the sense that it teaches and points to Jesus, as well as being true that it occurred as well). Nor is it idolatry to have evidence in your life confirm your faith.

I'll say it again because it is worth hearing. The bible is reliable. It is more reliable then theology. Trust God above our own understanding kind of thing is how I mean. Trusting the bible more then trusting the theology about the bible. That alone helps sort out false theology from reliable doctrine, if it doesn't measure up in the teachings and events of the bible.