Did St Matthew alter or correct the writings of St Mark?

[Civitate_Dei]

Hi i recently read some polimcs against christianity which stated that Matthew altered mark to make jesus more divine or powerful > I would like some material responding to these claims

shabirally.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/a-response-to-james-whites-some-brief-thoughts-regarding-liberal-scholarship-redaction-criticism-and-islam-part-1/

"1.In Mark 9:5, Peter called Jesus “Rabbi.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 17:4, Peter called Jesus “Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change Rabbi to Lord. It is not so easy to see why Mark would change Lord to Rabbi.
2.In Mark 13:35, Jesus referred to himself as “the master of the house.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 24:42, Jesus referred to himself as “your Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change ‘master of the house’ to ‘your Lord.’ The reverse is not easy to envisage.
3.In Mark 8:29, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 16:16, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah, Son of the Living God.” It is easy to see that Matthew inserted “Son of the Living God.” It is not easy to see why Mark would omit that designation for Jesus. Moreover, this example goes clearly against James’ suggestion that Matthew was abbreviating Mark. Here it is clear that Matthew expanded the address to include a significant title for Jesus.
4.In Mark 3:31, Jesus referred to God as “God.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 12:46, Jesus referred to God as “my Father.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change “God” to “my Father” in Jesus’ speech. It is not easy to see why Mark would change Jesus’ speech the other way around.
5.In Mark 4:38, the disciples, concerned about the storm at sea, awaken Jesus as he lay asleep in the stern. They say, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” But, in the same episode in Matthew 8:25, the disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, save us! We are perishing.” Thus in Mark the disciples rebuked Jesus. But in Matthew the disciples prayed to Jesus. Several scholars acknowledge that Matthew has improved this story from the point of view of later Christians. For example, in the Pelican New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel of St. Matthew, J. C. Fenton, writes: “Matthew has changed the form of address from Teacher (Mark 4:38) to Lord; and the words do you not care of we perish? to we are perishing, perhaps to remove the rebuke of Jesus by the disciples.”[7] Similarly, Robert H. Gundry in his Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art writes that Matthew has substituted his favorite “Lord” for “Teacher” in that episode.[8] Moreover, Gundry points out that whereas in Mark the disciples suggest that Jesus does not care that they are perishing, Matthew substituted the address “save [us]!”; then Matthew transformed the disciples’ question “do you not care that we are perishing” into their declaration “we are perishing.”
6.In Mark 12:29, Jesus, being asked what was the greatest commandment, replied as is known from Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” I used this example to show that Matthew has omitted the words, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” While it is possible that Mark went to the trouble of inserting the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 into Jesus’ speech, it seems more likely that Matthew’s Gospel omitted Deuteronomy 6:4 from Jesus’ speech. Matthew’s modification thus reflects the tendency among Christians at the time to deemphasize the Old Testament’s insistence on Yahweh as the only God.

 

[Civitate_Dei]

7.In Mark 10:11-18, as Jesus was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” But, in the same episode, in Matthew 19:17-18, the man came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.” As James Dunn has pointed out, it is easy to see the change going from Mark to Matthew; and it is difficult to see the change going from Matthew to Mark.[9] Matthew modified both the man’s question and Jesus’ answer. In Matthew, the man does not call Jesus good, and therefore Jesus does not rebuke the man for calling him good as Jesus did in Mark’s Gospel. But now, in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ reply to the man’s question is difficult to appreciate. Why would Jesus say to the man, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Was Jesus not a teacher of goodness? He would be expected to welcome anyone asking him, as the man asked, “Teacher, what good deed must I do ….” Moreover, why would Jesus at this point add, “There is only one who is good”? The man had not asked Jesus how many are there who are good. According to Dunn, the reason for the incoherence in Matthew’s Gospel at this point is that Matthew, while modifying the account is nevertheless trying to stay as close as he can to the Markan account. Hence, by making patchwork changes, Matthew has produced an incoherent account.
8.In Mark 11:12-14, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. Jesus said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And the tree withered by next morning. But, in the same episode in Matthew 21:18, Jesus was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing but leaves. Then Jesus said to the tree, “May no fruit ever come from you again.” And the tree withered at once. There are three major differences between the two episodes. First, Mark said that Jesus went to the tree “to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it.” Matthew did not mention the reason for Jesus going to the tree. Hence the fact that Jesus was disappointed is not as clear in Matthew as it is in Mark. Matthew did not mention that it was not the season for figs. Mark mentions that Jesus found nothing but leaves “for it was not the season for figs.” Hence from Mark’s Gospel the impression is clear that there was no problem with the tree. The problem was that it was not the season for figs. The episode in Mark thus highlights Jesus’ limited knowledge. It is easy to see that Matthew modified the narrative to avoid this implication about Jesus’ limited knowledge. It is difficult to see why Mark would take Matthew’s account and so change it as to make it appear that Jesus made such a mistake and then cursed the fig tree apparently due of his own frustration. The third major difference is as follows. In Mark’s account the tree was discovered withered as the disciples passed by it the following morning. But Matthew specifically says that the tree withered to its roots as soon as Jesus cursed it. Again, it is easy to see that Matthew has magnified the power of Jesus, and there is no reason for thinking that Mark would want to minimize Jesus’ power"

Also i came accross another site arguing that matthew corrected many errors in mark jewish who was a roman not familiar with jewish customs or geography
dearestwarrior.blogspot.kr/2005/10/some-evidence-that-matthew-copied-from.html

Id like any information on these topics

 

[juliamajor]

This is a pro quran, anti Christian site. Why would you listen to anything said there.?

MATTHEW and Mark are two separate gospels written by two different men for two different audiences. Did they use some of the same source material? Yes.Did they use different materials? Yes. Was one correcting the other? No. Was one pumping the Christology over the other? No.two different men, two different authors two different styles of writing. Why does that seem odd to people.? If a Cubist and a PreRaphelite painter both paint the last supper would they look alike? Same subject -different interpretation and technique. So it is in writing.

 

[bogeydogg]

The answer to your question is no. Try reading Christian Apologetics and you will see why. Big shocker, but the internet is not going to give you true info about Christianity and why would you try to learn about it from the pagans?

God Bless

 

[buffalo]

Here is a good read:


The Authors of the Gospels** (According to the Clementine Gospel Tradition)**

 

[prodigalson2011]

There is a growing amount of support among biblical scholars for the possibility that the Gospel of Matthew was the first of the synoptics and thus the source of Mark’s (as well as Luke’s) gospel. Looking at the two of them comparatively, this idea makes the most sense, I think.

 

[buffalo]

There is a growing amount of support among biblical scholars for the possibility that the Gospel of Matthew was the first of the synoptics and thus the source of Mark’s (as well as Luke’s) gospel. Looking at the two of them comparatively, this idea makes the most sense, I think.

Support? That was and is the church position.

 

[PeterK]

But, the question still remains…
Why are you seeking Christian truth from a pro-koran anti-Christian site?

Would you also attend a seminar on Martin Luther King organized and hosted by the Ku Klux Klan?

Think!

Peterk

 

[spockrates]

Hi i recently read some polimcs against christianity which stated that Matthew altered mark to make jesus more divine or powerful > I would like some material responding to these claims

shabirally.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/a-response-to-james-whites-some-brief-thoughts-regarding-liberal-scholarship-redaction-criticism-and-islam-part-1/

"1.In Mark 9:5, Peter called Jesus “Rabbi.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 17:4, Peter called Jesus “Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change Rabbi to Lord. It is not so easy to see why Mark would change Lord to Rabbi.

2.In Mark 13:35, Jesus referred to himself as “the master of the house.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 24:42, Jesus referred to himself as “your Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change ‘master of the house’ to ‘your Lord.’ The reverse is not easy to envisage.

But Mark also calls Jesus Lord:

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

(Mark 16)

3.In Mark 8:29, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 16:16, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah, Son of the Living God.” It is easy to see that Matthew inserted “Son of the Living God.” It is not easy to see why Mark would omit that designation for Jesus. Moreover, this example goes clearly against James’ suggestion that Matthew was abbreviating Mark. Here it is clear that Matthew expanded the address to include a significant title for Jesus.

And Mark, in the very beginning of his gospel, calls Jesus the Son of God:

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

(Mark 1:1)

4.In Mark 3:31, Jesus referred to God as “God.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 12:46, Jesus referred to God as “my Father.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change “God” to “my Father” in Jesus’ speech. It is not easy to see why Mark would change Jesus’ speech the other way around.

Mark also indicates that Jesus calls God his Father:

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man [Jesus] will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

(Mark 8:38)

5.In Mark 4:38, the disciples, concerned about the storm at sea, awaken Jesus as he lay asleep in the stern. They say, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” But, in the same episode in Matthew 8:25, the disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, save us! We are perishing.” Thus in Mark the disciples rebuked Jesus. But in Matthew the disciples prayed to Jesus. Several scholars acknowledge that Matthew has improved this story from the point of view of later Christians. For example, in the Pelican New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel of St. Matthew, J. C. Fenton, writes: “Matthew has changed the form of address from Teacher (Mark 4:38) to Lord; and the words do you not care of we perish? to we are perishing, perhaps to remove the rebuke of Jesus by the disciples.”[7] Similarly, Robert H. Gundry in his Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art writes that Matthew has substituted his favorite “Lord” for “Teacher” in that episode.[8] Moreover, Gundry points out that whereas in Mark the disciples suggest that Jesus does not care that they are perishing, Matthew substituted the address “save [us]!”; then Matthew transformed the disciples’ question “do you not care that we are perishing” into their declaration “we are perishing.”

Notice the remark of his disciples:

They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this?** Even the wind and the waves obey him!**”

(Mark 4:41)

Jesus did not pray that God stop the storm, he commanded the storm to stop–something only God can do, I think.

6.In Mark 12:29, Jesus, being asked what was the greatest commandment, replied as is known from Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” I used this example to show that Matthew has omitted the words, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” While it is possible that Mark went to the trouble of inserting the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 into Jesus’ speech, it seems more likely that Matthew’s Gospel omitted Deuteronomy 6:4 from Jesus’ speech. Matthew’s modification thus reflects the tendency among Christians at the time to deemphasize the Old Testament’s insistence on Yahweh as the only God.

Perhaps one gospel account is more complete than the other? At any rate, neither contradicts the other. They both agree Jesus said we should love God with our all our heart, soul and mind, and Matthew never says we should not love God with all our strength. Does he?

Hope that gives you some things worth considering.

 

[po18guy]

Did he correct Luke too?

Luke 1:43
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

It is clear that Muhammad did nothing to test the spirit that spoke to him.

1 John 4:1-4
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
4 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Galatians 1:8
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

 

[patrick457]

Just my take.

"1.In Mark 9:5, Peter called Jesus “Rabbi.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 17:4, Peter called Jesus “Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change Rabbi to Lord. It is not so easy to see why Mark would change Lord to Rabbi.

The reason for this is pretty easy. A peculiar characteristic of Matthew is his use of titles as subtle cues to denote where a given character’s loyalty lies: within his gospel, everyone who believes in Jesus always address Him as “Lord” (8:2-8; 9:27-31; 14:28; 17:4; 20:30), but those who are antagonistic to Jesus always call Him “teacher” (8:19; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16). This distinction of titles gives a whole new meaning to Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and the Pharisees in chapter 23:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’”

In fact, there is only one character throughout the entire gospel who uses the title “rabbi” for Jesus: Judas (26:25, 49).

When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

You can see this difference more clearly when you compare Matthew with Mark: Matthew has Peter and the two blind men address Jesus as “Lord” when Mark has Peter and Bartimaeus saying “Rabbi” (17:4; 20:33; cf. Mark 9:5; 10:51); the other instance where Peter calls Jesus “Rabbi” in Mark (when he finds the fig tree withered; 10:51), meanwhile, is simply not found in Matthew’s gospel.

 

[Zooey]

Just my take.

The reason for this is pretty easy. A peculiar characteristic of Matthew is his use of titles as subtle cues to denote where a given character’s loyalty lies: within his gospel, everyone who believes in Jesus always address Him as “Lord” (8:2-8; 9:27-31; 14:28; 17:4; 20:30), but those who are antagonistic to Jesus always call Him “teacher” (8:19; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16). This distinction of titles gives a whole new meaning to Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and the Pharisees in chapter 23:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’”
In fact, there is only one character throughout the entire gospel who uses the title “rabbi” for Jesus: Judas (26:25, 49).
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.
You can see this difference more clearly when you compare Matthew with Mark: Matthew has Peter and the two blind men address Jesus as “Lord” when Mark has Peter and Bartimaeus saying “Rabbi” (17:4; 20:33; cf. Mark 9:5; 10:51); the other instance where Peter calls Jesus “Rabbi” in Mark (when he finds the fig tree withered; 10:51), meanwhile, is simply not found in Matthew’s gospel.

Patrick, as usual, you have it right.

My own understanding is that the 1st Gospel was Matthew [Aramaic]. Both Mark & Luke used this as the basis of their own writing. So did the author of Matthew [Greek].

One of my pet peeves is people going around trying to to get good Christian folks all upset by claiming that this or that part of the Bible is somehow false, or has been severely edited to change its meaning. It sounds like the OP has come upon a site that is doing just that… It happens; some of those guys are pretty subtle.

 

[po18guy]

This is a pro quran, anti Christian site. Why would you listen to anything said there.?

My thoughts exactly. The entire world comes against our faith. Since we are to worship both in spirit and in truth, our intellect remains only part of the equation. Christ left us peace, while man, like corrosion, constantly attacks it.

 

[PJM]

=Civitate Dei;10185156]Hi i recently read some polimcs against christianity which stated that Matthew altered mark to make jesus more divine or powerful > I would like some material responding to these claims

shabirally.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/a-response-to-james-whites-some-brief-thoughts-regarding-liberal-scholarship-redaction-criticism-and-islam-part-1/

"1.In Mark 9:5, Peter called Jesus “Rabbi.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 17:4, Peter called Jesus “Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change Rabbi to Lord. It is not so easy to see why Mark would change Lord to Rabbi.
2.In Mark 13:35, Jesus referred to himself as “the master of the house.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 24:42, Jesus referred to himself as “your Lord.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change ‘master of the house’ to ‘your Lord.’ The reverse is not easy to envisage.
3.In Mark 8:29, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 16:16, Peter called Jesus “the Messiah, Son of the Living God.” It is easy to see that Matthew inserted “Son of the Living God.” It is not easy to see why Mark would omit that designation for Jesus. Moreover, this example goes clearly against James’ suggestion that Matthew was abbreviating Mark. Here it is clear that Matthew expanded the address to include a significant title for Jesus.
4.In Mark 3:31, Jesus referred to God as “God.” But, in the same episode in Matthew 12:46, Jesus referred to God as “my Father.” It is easy to see why Matthew would change “God” to “my Father” in Jesus’ speech. It is not easy to see why Mark would change Jesus’ speech the other way around.
5.In Mark 4:38, the disciples, concerned about the storm at sea, awaken Jesus as he lay asleep in the stern. They say, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” But, in the same episode in Matthew 8:25, the disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, save us! We are perishing.” Thus in Mark the disciples rebuked Jesus. But in Matthew the disciples prayed to Jesus. Several scholars acknowledge that Matthew has improved this story from the point of view of later Christians. For example, in the Pelican New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel of St. Matthew, J. C. Fenton, writes: “Matthew has changed the form of address from Teacher (Mark 4:38) to Lord; and the words do you not care of we perish? to we are perishing, perhaps to remove the rebuke of Jesus by the disciples.”[7] Similarly, Robert H. Gundry in his Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art writes that Matthew has substituted his favorite “Lord” for “Teacher” in that episode.[8] Moreover, Gundry points out that whereas in Mark the disciples suggest that Jesus does not care that they are perishing, Matthew substituted the address “save [us]!”; then Matthew transformed the disciples’ question “do you not care that we are perishing” into their declaration “we are perishing.”

My dear friend in Christ,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

**Mark’s primary audience was new Christian Roman’s **who’s understanding of Judaism was lacking much. Therefore Mark uses terminology more “suitable” [as one who is “selling the idea and teachings of Christ,”] to these converts.

A further comparison of Matthew and Mark, and even Luke.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Matthews Gospel was intended First for the Jews.

The different audiences cannot be overlooked. A GREAT part of the teaching by all of the Apostles involved in a most real sense: SELLING JESUS as GOD/MESSIAH. Thus accommodation in terms are a part of this effort; not a separate theology; a different teaching. It is taking the most effective method to THE SAME END.

One musr never over-look 1st. Tim. 3:16-17 which affirms that the Bible is always true; but not always factual.

Grandpa used to tell us: “when see LOOK for trouble; we usually find it”.
The One Infallible rule for right understanding of the Teaching Mesages of the Bible is:
NEVER-EVER, CAN, MAY** OR DOES** ONE PASSAGE MAKE VOID, INVALIDATE OR OVERRIDE ANOTHER. Such would cause the entire bible to be worthless for teaching or learning ones Faith

 

[COPLAND_3]

I highly recommend St. Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels. I put it together in an easy to use format here sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/harmony-of-the-gospels

 

[po18guy]

I think it safe to say that the upshot of replies in this thread leans toward listening to Christian sources, preferably Catholic or Orthodox, for a thorough explanation of Christianity. The examination of critique that has been postulated by those ignorant of, or hostile to, Christianity is useful only in the development of a refutation of their error.

 

[Zooey]

My thoughts exactly. The entire world comes against our faith. Since we are to worship both in spirit and in truth, our intellect remains only part of the equation. Christ left us peace, while man, like corrosion, constantly attacks it.

I think it safe to say that the upshot of replies in this thread leans toward listening to Christian sources, preferably Catholic or Orthodox, for a thorough explanation of Christianity. The examination of critique that has been postulated by those ignorant of, or hostile to, Christianity is useful only in the development of a refutation of their error.