Platapus, I agree with much of what you have said. In fact, Christians are frequently selecting what appeals to them and making their own god. Regarding the command that Scripture cannot be broken, it is later contridicted in John 14:6 (I am the way...) and in Matthew 26:28 (New Covenant), which would seem to indicate that one should 'forget what you learned in Hebrew School; we're doing things my way now'. All of this really does reinforce what antikristuseke said about the lack of consistency.
My personal view has always been that the problems viewed by the modern reader stem from two realities:
First, that the teachings of the New Covenant were a slow revelation and conversion to an uneducated group of devout followers. The disciples and followers of Jesus were the cast-offs of society; simple fishermen, leppers, prositutes, gamblers, etc. He would use a slow system of replacement to ease the transition. This would result in contradictions when reading a synopsis of teachings, which is really what the Gospels are.
Second, the Gospels themselves were pieced together by second-hand accounts, and was written by four individuals with very different viewpoints and directions for the fledgling Church. The Gospel of John is extreemly theological; hammering home the point that Jesus is the incarnation of God. The Gospel of Matthew is much more focused on the reconsiliation with Judaism proper. The Gospel of Luke regards Christianity as something along the lines of social revolution. Accordingly, you'll have very different accounts of events.
For me, it is the fact that each writer is consistent in the major tenets of Christianity that sells me. However, the devil is always in the details, so I can understand someone who sees the differences and reaches the opposite conclusion.
|