Chili

Sorry but I can't help you very much here but I always thought that before we call the bible wrong we better make sure that we are right and for this our eyes would have to be fully opened. We all know those who claim to have the bible come alive and speak to them in a new kind of way, which should tell us that there is a difference to the point even that apparent contradictions become compliments to each other. This would be where I think that the "mind of Christ" is at, which is also our mandate in the bible.

Needless to say that a reform is needed to obtain the mind of Christ and that would take place in our mind and not in the mind of others. This would kind of tell me that a reformer is always wrong from which follows that we should never follow a reformer who must be leading us in the wrong direction if we follow him.

I actually think that there was only one Gospel writer to make such a perfect match possible between them. His purpose for this was to lay the foundation for the Catholic church by taking the Jewish promise to full maturity in John. Mark removes the Jewish influence and Luke adds the metaphysics towards a full understanding when we come full circle in John.

Are they still synoptic? I would say no, but maybe I do not know what synoptic really means.

rhutchin

Not exactly sure what that means.

I have generally heard that Mark wrote his gospel from information provided to him by Peter. Matthew then took Mark's gospel and basically expanded it. Luke may have had copies of Mark and Matthew but basically wrote a new version using infomation he gathered in his research reflecting his own experiences and interviews with people who were eyewitnesses to Christ. Who really knows? However, Matthew seems intent on filling in the gaps in Mark's account and Luke seems intent on providing a historical account to supplement the earlier works.

rhutchin

The accounts in Matthew 27 and Mark 15 are essentially the same. Comparing Matthew to Luke we find:

Matthew 27
45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.

Luke 23
44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!”
48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

Luke 23
46
And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last.

We have this sequence in the words spoken by Jesus.

- And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

- And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

- And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last.

I don't see a problem between the accounts concerning the words that Jesus spoke. What do you see as the error that Mark made that Luke sought to correct?

aa5874

If the author of Luke witnessed many things that Jesus did, then the authors of Matthew, Mark and John are either frauds or were misled. In any event, the Gospels have very little credibility due to many glaring descrepancies.

Luke could not have seen any miracles being performed, there have been no credible records showing that miracles occured at any time throughout the history of mankind.

Being blind, deaf, dumb or mentally unstable is not as a result of evil ghosts, the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have erred.

Chili

Nono, Mark removed the Jewish error that caused the children of Israel to keep going around in circles with only a far distant end in sight, which is much the same as the problem that protestants are facing today. Like, up and down between faith and doubt as if they are still trying to breed the devil but she won't catch. Poor souls, is all I will say for now.

You might condsider that Justus instead of Matthias was chosen to replace Judas while Peter remained but moved to Rome. In this analogy Justus was justice, Matthias was Matthew, Judas was Judaism and Peter was faith.

Chili

Miracles are essential because Luke was observing the confusion in the mind of Joseph who's world had gone array and therefore went to Bethlehem to give an account of himself. This confusion made him "pregnant with despair" (as Joyce put it) and it was out of this chaos that Christ was born unto him.

If you don't like evil ghosts would you go for lose ends or unfinished business in the conscious mind that turns our world upside down?

I forgot to say that the entire Gospels take place in the mind of one man.

douglas

I'm suggesting that Luke and John purposely, willfully omitted the “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” because it didn't fit with their theological agendas. It's also true that their primary audiences were non-jewish, so the connection to Psalm 22 was not as important to them as it may have been to Matthew's audience.

The thing that really bugs me about all this is that it further convinces me that the crucifixion scene never happened. All the gospel writers were just pulling stuff from various sources to support their own particular agenda, or what they thought their particular audience would buy in to. A good used car sales pro would do the same thing. I wish I could see this wonderful continuity that others see among the gospels, but I'm sorry, I don't.

By no means am I presenting myself as an expert on this topic. I'm just stating what my understanding is.

Chili

John's "It is finished" tells us that Jesus was in charge and wanted to be crucified the complete his own liberation. The rest is drama.

rhutchin

The omission suggests that both Luke and John had the earlier gospels (and there is no reason why they would not) and sought to provide additional information and not repeat what was already said. I don't see different theological agendas other than to present the same gospel to different audiences as you suggest.

However, this would not be an error, would it?

The purpose of the gospel writers is to provide information to the reader. Matthew takes Mark's gospel and expands it to provide information to people he wanted to explain the gospel (probably those familiar with the OT). Luke takes from Mark and Matthew and provides additional information to explain the gospel to other people (probably those not familiar with the OT). John took an entirely different approach to explain more about who Christ was.

All the gospel writers seem to be writing for those people with whom they associated on a daily basis. Matthew lived among Jews so he wrote for them. Luke traveled with Paul and associated with gentiles so he wrote for them. John was writing to those whom God had saved to explain the richness of the gospel message. I do not see any evil intent in any of these purposes and don't know why you would assume such.

Doug Shaver

Neither do I, but human error does not require evil intent. Do you think it is at all possible that the gospel authors could have made some mistakes? I'm not asking you to say they did, just whether they possibly could have.