N
Needy1
Guest
It’s important but not mentioned in other gospels.
- Status
H
Hodos
Guest
Your question is off-base because it applies an absurd standard to the gospel narratives that we would not even apply today (for example in a courtroom). It assumes that each author viewed all the same details the same way and reported them in exactly the same way. If the gospels were supposed to have one narrative that presented all the same details, exactly the same way, why have four gospels? And if by chance that they did, the objection from scoffers would be that the narratives are collusions that are not independent of one another. If we went to court, and four witnesses presented the exact same story with no differentiation of the details, that is exactly the charge that would be made. Or think about an investigation that makes use of four cameras stationed at different places that record an event. All four might catch from various angles the main event, but each, due to their field of view might catch different details that one or more of the other cameras would not. That doesn’t mean the camera is in error.
Each of the four gospels offer a slightly different description of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Each author had access to different sources, each had different points about the meaning of Jesus life, death, and resurrection that they were trying to convey to a different audience. Each had different writing styles, etc. If we applied the standard you mention above, then the virgin birth for example, would be non-canonical because only two of the four gospel writers reported it. Or for example, John’s narrative of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well and the resulting conversation, which no other gospel writer records, would be tossed from the gospel narrative as well. How about the Last Supper? Only three of the four gospel narratives discuss it, John excludes it from his gospel. See what I am getting at? The important point here is what details does the author tell us, and why? There is a purpose to the material that each of the gospel writers include in their narratives.
Each of the four gospels offer a slightly different description of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Each author had access to different sources, each had different points about the meaning of Jesus life, death, and resurrection that they were trying to convey to a different audience. Each had different writing styles, etc. If we applied the standard you mention above, then the virgin birth for example, would be non-canonical because only two of the four gospel writers reported it. Or for example, John’s narrative of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well and the resulting conversation, which no other gospel writer records, would be tossed from the gospel narrative as well. How about the Last Supper? Only three of the four gospel narratives discuss it, John excludes it from his gospel. See what I am getting at? The important point here is what details does the author tell us, and why? There is a purpose to the material that each of the gospel writers include in their narratives.
Last edited:
C
chessnerd321
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly. We would actually have more cause to discount the gospels if they were all written exactly the same.
N
Needy1
Guest
Yes I know what you’re saying, but it’s a one of the biggest miracle in gospels, though not yet mentioned in other gospels including John which was written by the Apostle is just confusing.
H
Hodos
Guest
Is it? I see all kinds of miracles in the gospels, most of which didn’t convince people that Jesus is the Son of God. The real miracle of the gospel is that Jesus brings stubborn, hard-hearted people to faith in God through his grace. And that is exactly the point of the gospels.
Last edited:
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
By what standard would it be false because it’s not mentioned in any other gospel? Much of John isn’t mentioned in the other gospels, that does not mean, it is, therefore false.
M
midori
Guest
Have you ever written a narrative about events?
Suppose you have four people writing a narrative about a pep rally. They talk about the marching band, the cheerleaders, the football players, the mascot, the crowd. One person might mention the principal’s presence. Two of them might mention the coaches. One person might talk about the junior boosters’ participation. Three of them might talk about audience participation. The second trumpet might have played a flat note and a bass drum might have been off-beat, but maybe no one mentioned it in writing at all at the time-- even if everyone heard it-- and it might have only been brought up in verbal conversation that survived years later… “Remember that time when…!”
But when you’re writing a narrative, you have a flow. You’re not able to document every. single. thing. unless you’re reeeeeeally fond of asides, parenthetical statements, a choppy flow to your sequence of events, and no limits to your wordcount. And if you’ve ever written anything in longhand, in a culture where paper (or papyrus!) isn’t readily available for a dollar-per-hundred-sheets, you kind of find a way to figure out what you want to say, and say it efficiently.
So you figure out what your point is, and you structure your narrative to convey your point. You’re sorry that you’re not able to explain All The Cool Stuff Going On, but that’s what happens when you focus. We already have it on John’s authority that there’s more Cool Stuff That Got Left Out of the ministry of Jesus than can fill all the books in the world–
Suppose you have four people writing a narrative about a pep rally. They talk about the marching band, the cheerleaders, the football players, the mascot, the crowd. One person might mention the principal’s presence. Two of them might mention the coaches. One person might talk about the junior boosters’ participation. Three of them might talk about audience participation. The second trumpet might have played a flat note and a bass drum might have been off-beat, but maybe no one mentioned it in writing at all at the time-- even if everyone heard it-- and it might have only been brought up in verbal conversation that survived years later… “Remember that time when…!”
But when you’re writing a narrative, you have a flow. You’re not able to document every. single. thing. unless you’re reeeeeeally fond of asides, parenthetical statements, a choppy flow to your sequence of events, and no limits to your wordcount. And if you’ve ever written anything in longhand, in a culture where paper (or papyrus!) isn’t readily available for a dollar-per-hundred-sheets, you kind of find a way to figure out what you want to say, and say it efficiently.
So you figure out what your point is, and you structure your narrative to convey your point. You’re sorry that you’re not able to explain All The Cool Stuff Going On, but that’s what happens when you focus. We already have it on John’s authority that there’s more Cool Stuff That Got Left Out of the ministry of Jesus than can fill all the books in the world–
so we’re just happy that one person ended up taking the time to record a unique detail, so that it hasn’t devolved into either legendary folklore or been completely forgotten to time.
Last edited:
N
Needy1
Guest
I was confused since the event were gorgeous, but only mentioned in the Mat. Resurrecting the righteous peoples of the ancient Israel.
However, probably you people are right. Optimistically, the Gospel according to Matthew is consecrated and the writer is blessed so the mat had unique verse
Ty for the comments.
However, probably you people are right. Optimistically, the Gospel according to Matthew is consecrated and the writer is blessed so the mat had unique verse
Ty for the comments.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
It was probably a temporary miracle and they went back to their tombs. To me, the dead appeared to people like the high priest and Herod, and they still would not believe. Like Jesus said, even if the dead spoke to them, they will not believe.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Maybe they didn’t feel the need to repeat that story?
Z
Zach
Guest
Most of what Jesus said and did isn’t even written in scripture. If it is in the Bible you can be assured that it’s true.From the last verses of the Gospels John 21: 24-25
24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It wasn’t as widespread an event as an initial reading might imply. Here’s how St. Jerome explains it (as reproduced in the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas):
Matthew’s Gospel is the most focused on showing the how Christ fulfilled the prophecies and this was an example of that.
Last edited:
D
Dlee
Guest
The four Gospels stand alone - they do not all record the save events. Mark doesn’t tell of the birth of Jesus - does that mean it did not happen?
H
Hodos
Guest
The material at the end of chapter 16 (verses 9-20) was most likely a later addition to the gospel of Mark. We can tell because there are actually several different endings of Mark (four major lines of different textual history that I am aware of). So, from that standpoint I do not typically use it for proof texts to support doctrine. That being said, I do believe that it boils down what is said in Matthew and Luke and the beginning of Acts as well as what Peter says about baptism in a faithful manner. I think it is useful for instruction from that standpoint, but I doubt it authenticity as being written by Mark.
I am actually leading a Bible study with my children through Mark. I intend to tell them that the original version most likely stops at verse 8 where the women find the empty tomb and tell no one. I will do this because if you follow the thrust of Mark and key in on his tendency to emphasize that Jesus was always telling people not to talk about their experiences with him, yet the word gets out anyway, it seems that Mark is using this as a rhetorical device to tell the individual listener, YOU (YES, YOU) HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GO PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL!!! Its like, what do you mean the tomb is empty and they said nothing? SOMEONE has to go witness that the tomb was empty! Yep, that person is you.
Last edited:
R
Roguish
Guest
This is very interesting actually, thanks for pointing this out. I don’t think there is any reason to doubt the veracity of these verses, but they certainly are mysterious.
H
Hodos
Guest
I would agree with you on the issue of 2 Peter. Personally, I think it is pretty biased to say that Peter did not dictate or write 2 Peter. The evidence is scant either way. The early church fathers weren’t sure, and the issue hasn’t been settled with time. Ultimately though, 2 Peter was never accepted on the authenticity of the author but on the faithfulness of its message to the gospel. The same can be said of Hebrews. The early fathers never knew who wrote Hebrews, but they knew it was from the apostolic age and they knew that the theology of Hebrews was dead on and faithful to the gospel message.
With regard to your advice, if we don’t discuss these issues with our kids in an environment of faith, some atheist college professor will later. Consider that the leading critic of Christianity is Bart Ehrman. I would rather prepare my kids so that they understand issues of translation and textual criticism so that they are not unprepared later.
With regard to your advice, if we don’t discuss these issues with our kids in an environment of faith, some atheist college professor will later. Consider that the leading critic of Christianity is Bart Ehrman. I would rather prepare my kids so that they understand issues of translation and textual criticism so that they are not unprepared later.
Last edited:
S
Smurfie
Guest
I quote from Ignatius catholic study bible
saints were raised…Apart from Matthew Gospel. history is silent regarding this event and the OT personalities involved. No indication is given as to who was raised, how long they remained, or what kind kind of body these saint processed, yet there would be no reason for Matthew to record it, except that witnesses from Jerualem verified the facts (27:53) theologically, it is essential to note these OT saints were raised (27:53) Easter morning, since Jesus was the first to resurrected in Goly (col 1:18)
saints were raised…Apart from Matthew Gospel. history is silent regarding this event and the OT personalities involved. No indication is given as to who was raised, how long they remained, or what kind kind of body these saint processed, yet there would be no reason for Matthew to record it, except that witnesses from Jerualem verified the facts (27:53) theologically, it is essential to note these OT saints were raised (27:53) Easter morning, since Jesus was the first to resurrected in Goly (col 1:18)
B
Brendea
Guest
Mabye it’s not mentioned I other gospels beacuse it is covered in Mathew, just beacuse it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible does not mean it is any less true. If it was somewhere else in the bible it would read differently and could cause confusion. I also believe that to truly understand what is happening in that scenario it is best to read Mathew 27: 45-55
T
Thom18
Guest
There are reasons for the different gospel authors including what they did (though we can only speculate what those reasons are). For example, Matthew included the naming of Peter as the Rock, but Mark’s gospel (which Peter is said by some to have dictated to him, if I remember correctly) doesn’t include it, and one explanation is that Peter was too humble to want to mention it himself, so Matthew’s gospel includes it.
John’s gospel is the only one which contains the Bread of Life discourse, and one possible explanation is that he included it particularly because none of the other gospels did. He wanted to emphasize the Real Presence (though he didn’t include a Last Supper narrative as the others did particularly because the other three contained them).
As for this, just as with anything else, we can only guess. However, Matthew’s inclusion of this event would suggest that including it would help fulfill the themes which he presented.
John’s gospel is the only one which contains the Bread of Life discourse, and one possible explanation is that he included it particularly because none of the other gospels did. He wanted to emphasize the Real Presence (though he didn’t include a Last Supper narrative as the others did particularly because the other three contained them).
As for this, just as with anything else, we can only guess. However, Matthew’s inclusion of this event would suggest that including it would help fulfill the themes which he presented.
- Status