Scriptual Confusion

[Dennislp3]

Lately while doing some research I have stumbled across a few things that I do not fully make sense of in the Bible.

First off is in The Gospel of John

(John 11:1)
Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
(John 11:2)
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

Later it is said

(John 12:3)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

There are no accounts of Jesus having Mary anoint him with ointment and wiping his feet with her hair and tears. The only account of this is in Luke 7:37-38 but this woman is not named and is labeled as only a sinner.

If these are separate books why would the author of this one refer to another…in fact that begs the question of who the author is…it is assumed to be the apostle John but there is no direct evidence and he labels himself as merely the “Beloved Apostle” which could include many people.

What is more confusing is that if the author referred to Luke why would he. Luke WAS NOT an apostle when John himself was.

Luke was a companion of Paul. It is also believed that the Gospel of Luke was partly derived from the Gospel of Mark. Luke is also attributed to writing Acts.

Paul himself never made a Gospel…why would 2 (potentially 3) of them all be based on Paul?

There are numerous other questions of things that seem to conflict to me as well but I will not point out verses and merely be satisfied with this…can anyone help?

Mark WAS NOT an apostle either but rather considered an interpreter of Paul. He did not even know Paul but learned from one of Paul’s students.

 

[Danno2281]

As for Johanine authorship, this should help:

newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

How does dependence upon Luke seem evident? John relates what he observed; Luke relates (as he clearly tells us) what has been handed on to him.

 

[marymichael10]

Lately while doing some research I have stumbled across a few things that I do not fully make sense of in the Bible.

First off is in The Gospel of John

(John 11:1)
Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
(John 11:2)
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

Later it is said

(John 12:3)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

There are no accounts of Jesus having Mary anoint him with ointment and wiping his feet with her hair and tears. The only account of this is in Luke 7:37-38 but this woman is not named and is labeled as only a sinner.

I don’t think that this necessarily undermines either Gospel, or proves that John drew from Luke as a source. While she is unnamed in Luke 7:37-38, she is named in Luke 8:2, immediately after this story (and, I think, not ironically). And concerning the double account in John, perhaps she simply anointed His feet again: maybe in thanksgiving for Jesus having raised her brother Lazarus perhaps. There are slight discrepancies in all the Gospels, but we must not take that as a reason to lose faith, rather to gain it. These 4 men, no matter how similar each Gospel is to another, had an essentially different view of Jesus (Matthew: the prophecied King, Mark: a zealous prophet, Luke: gentle master, John: eternal Word and Son of God), while altogether telling the same story as one another.

If these are separate books why would the author of this one refer to another…in fact that begs the question of who the author is…it is assumed to be the apostle John but there is no direct evidence and he labels himself as merely the “Beloved Apostle” which could include many people.

What is more confusing is that if the author referred to Luke why would he. Luke WAS NOT an apostle when John himself was.

I, personally, believe that the Gospel of John is derived from the Words of the very Apostle (as time and tradition holds that this ‘Beloved Disciple’ was in fact John, and as can be discerned through study of the other Gospels), simply because of the interpersonal view of Jesus in it, apart from the synoptics. It can’t truly be said that John did indeed write the Gospel himself, but it’s worthy of belief. This Gospel was dated around 80-90 AD. The Apostle would’ve had to been quite old. But all one must do is read the final words of the Gospel, John 21:24: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”
How could it be the discpile himself if ‘they’ know his testimony is true? It could’ve, in all probability, been a follower or close companion of John to write the Gospel as John dictated it. Nontheless, the Gospel as a whole is far apart from the synoptics, but worthy of the same veneration. The Jesus depicted in John is eternal, the ‘Word made flesh’, the Son of God and God Himself. While the synoptics depict the life of Jesus as a whole, John’s Gospel is filled with intricate speeches by Jesus concerning His own divinity, and pre-existence…something certainly not found in other Gospels, which would lead me to believe that they are word of mouth from someone who was close to Jesus.
And with the problem of discerning whether the writer of John’s Gospel drew upon Luke, I would have to disagree, because marking out the Magdelene stories counterparted in each Gospel, Luke comes no where near the sayings of Christ concerning His pre-existence. And if John drew from Luke, why didn’t He include the story of the Institution of the Eucharist (Luke 22:14-20)? Or the story of Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary and the Incarnation (Luke 1:26-45)? Perhaps because these Gospels were already widely in distribution at the time, and He focused on things which weren’t included. And, in addition, John, while not including the stories of the Last Supper and Annunciation, sort of provides His own commentary on the stories, such as the Bread of Life discourse (John 6:25-51) and His prologue, about the “Word became flesh, and made His dwelling among us.” (John 1:1-18). And if he be drawing from Luke, why does He include the story of the Wedding at Cana, where Mary intercedes for the young married couple, which is not found in any other synoptic?

I hope this helped in some fashion. I believe we should accept the scriptures as a whole and not focus on tiny differential details to lose faith. I hope you grow in your faith, in your conversion. Good luck and God Bless!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Dorothy Sayers once wrote a series of radio plays for BBC based on the Gospel. In those she suggests that Mary copied from the previous incident reported in Luke.

 

[VetA]

I dont know if this is what youre looking for but here goes:

the gospels were written by four different people, for four different audiences. the gospel writer included things and excluded things from the story of Jesus according to what the particular group of believers needs were, just because one gospel has something that the other three do not that does not mean that that that thing is not important or did not in fact happen. it just means that it was not as important for the faith community trying to be reached.

 

[Dennislp3]

I am not losing faith over the matters. I just wonder about some scripture when it does seem to have even small discrepancies. I do take the scriptures for what it says I just like to know what I am reading as well as the history behind it. I guess I was just making a point that my research shows that they kind of just stack onto each other…And that some of the material comes from Paul…and that makes me wonder why Paul did not just make one himself.

I would right more…but I am tired…thank you for the responses.

 

[simspt]

Lately while doing some research I have stumbled across a few things that I do not fully make sense of in the Bible.

First off is in The Gospel of John

(John 11:1)
Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
(John 11:2)
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

Later it is said

(John 12:3)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

There are no accounts of Jesus having Mary anoint him with ointment and wiping his feet with her hair and tears. The only account of this is in Luke 7:37-38 but this woman is not named and is labeled as only a sinner.

If these are separate books why would the author of this one refer to another…in fact that begs the question of who the author is…it is assumed to be the apostle John but there is no direct evidence and he labels himself as merely the “Beloved Apostle” which could include many people.

What is more confusing is that if the author referred to Luke why would he. Luke WAS NOT an apostle when John himself was.

Luke was a companion of Paul. It is also believed that the Gospel of Luke was partly derived from the Gospel of Mark. Luke is also attributed to writing Acts.

Paul himself never made a Gospel…why would 2 (potentially 3) of them all be based on Paul?

There are numerous other questions of things that seem to conflict to me as well but I will not point out verses and merely be satisfied with this…can anyone help?

Mark WAS NOT an apostle either but rather considered an interpreter of Paul. He did not even know Paul but learned from one of Paul’s students.

I had very similar questions myself and have found this resource to be helpful in relation to the different Marys In the NT.
welcomerecordings.com/product_details.php?category_id=48&item_id=6

 

[PJM]

=Dennislp3;6712970]Lately while doing some research I have stumbled across a few things that I do not fully make sense of in the Bible.

First off is in The Gospel of John

(John 11:1)
Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (John 11:2) (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

---

Later it is said

(John 12:3)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

There are no accounts of Jesus having Mary anoint him with ointment and wiping his feet with her hair and tears. The only account of this is in Luke 7:37-38 but this woman is not named and is labeled as only a sinner.

There are many cross references of authors; Mark for example wrote the first and earilest Gospel. Matt, Luke and John certainly had read it and were influenced by it. There is a continuity and sameness about the message. They do NOT contradict each other. Each book is written to a diferent audience at a slightly different time, in there own God Inspired Words.

If these are separate books why would the author of this one refer to another…in fact that begs the question of who the author is…it is assumed to be the apostle John but there is no direct evidence and he labels himself as merely the “Beloved Apostle” which could include many people.

No, the “beloved” is John and identifed as such in Sacred Tradition.

What is more confusing is that if the author referred to Luke why would he. Luke WAS NOT an apostle when John himself was.

Luke was a companion of Paul. It is also believed that the Gospel of Luke was partly derived from the Gospel of Mark. Luke is also attributed to writing Acts.

Sory but I see no relevence to this point. God ues whom it please HIM to ue.

Paul himself never made a Gospel…why would 2 (potentially 3) of them all be based on Paul?

Because by far Paul was the best educated, best infomed and most articulte. He also did th most traveling, and started the most churches.

There are numerous other questions of things that seem to conflict to me as well but I will not point out verses and merely be satisfied with this…can anyone help?

Mark WAS NOT an apostle either but rather considered an interpreter of Paul. He did not even know Paul but learned from one of Paul’s students.

Hope this is of some help?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .

Mark WAS NOT an apostle either but rather considered an interpreter of Paul. He did not even know Paul but learned from one of Paul’s students.

25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from * Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.

Acts 12:25

37 And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,

Acts 15:37-39

11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.

2 Timothy 4:11