Amos

OK fine David, but then they are not synoptic because all four have a different perspective. They report different women at the tomb, for example and also what the Magi saw and what the shepherds saw is different. These differences are crucial towards the correct interpretation or we could soon neglect everything that does not make sense and fill in the blanks as we need to.

They are all synoptic because they describe the same event or they are not because they each give a different perspective. I mean we can't just say these are closer and therefore they are and this other one does not quite make that distiction and is therefore not synoptic. I would say thay if we can't do any better than that we should go home and let somebody else do it.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Butters

Damn, almost made sense!

Iasion

Greetings Amos,

Actually, you seem to have missed the point.

It is not about how similar the Gospels may be or why - I'll leave that discussion to those who know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

rather,
its about the meaning of the word "synoptic", a common term in our circles.[*]"Synoptic" means they "see the SAME", but you wrongly argue it means "different".[*]The Synoptics do NOT include G.John, yet you wrongly include it.

I enclose a quote from a online bible encyclopedia as reference :
...the first 3 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)--ordinarily named "the Synoptic Gospels," because, in contrast with the Fourth Gospel, they present, as embodying a common tradition, the same general view ...

Its only a minor point, but a little surprising you didn't know the meaning.

regards,
Quentin David Jones

Amos

</strong>

Hello Quentin, I see the point and I know what synoptic means. My objection is that because the difference in John is more obvious it is regarded as 'seeing' different but that is just not true. All four describe the same purgation period of Jesus (as I call it) but they are four distinctly different prespectives. Matthew is Judaism, Mark is pagan, Luke is omniscient and John is Catholic-- or what was soon to become Catholic to give direction to Catholicism.

The point is that if you are going to resolve al paradoxes an understanding of these different perspectives must be the key to the solution and in doing so all four are the same or there would have to be two different events.

For example, after the dove descended Matthew goes right into the desert where Jesus is tempted and torn by his own religion that set him free from religion. The reason why he is torn is because in his subconscious mind he is guest at the wedding in Cana where he meets his mother as head waitress. Jesus was fully sane because his apostles had been called of which Matthew doesn't have a clue because Matthew only knows about the shepherds who now become his apostles after metanoia in John. At the wedding in Cana Jesus meets his lineage as described in omniscient Luke, which is therefore an inspired account just after the descent of the dove.

The shepherds were the qualities of Joseph now become the apostles of Jesus needed to work out his salvation in fear and trembling. So the first one to go is Judaism and he figured out while at the wedding in Cana that the turmoil in his conscious mind is no good as long as religion has its opinion secured there (the temptations told him so). Therefore, in John he goes to the temple and terminates all his previous business there.

So here we have the case that Matthew and John complement each other and are very synoptic.

So lets just say that the encyclopdia is wrong and very much misleading. However, I see your point and will try to remember (I think I knew this but I don't think it is wise to remember things that are wrong).

Thanks for your comments.

Amos

Visiting this post again I would agree that if the wedding in Cana is equal to the temptations in the desert (since they were the cause of these temptations), that they are opposite and therefore not synoptic. But if Luke was reporting the guests at the banquet while Matthew was in the desert (because Jesus was having a party in his honor) you can't convince me that Luke and Matthew are more synoptic then Matthew and John. I actually think that Luke and John are more synoptic because Luke was at the party and Matthew was not. In the mean time, Mark just makes the observation that Jesus didn not go to church for a while but Mark himself was neither in the desert to give an account nor was he at the party to give an account there (as a pagan he would not have knowledge of either).

The banquet is when Jesus first was introduced to the Thousand Year Reign and the description of his lineage serves as evidence for this.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

CX

I hate to stir the pot here because the ultimate conclusion that ALk's and AMt's genealogies cannot be harmonized is correct, but...hUIOS need not only mean biological son. There are numerous examples of the word hUIOS being used more figuratively. For example hUIOU ANQROPOU; "son of man". Consider also patriarchal usages that denote lineage or tribal affiliations as in GMk 12:35 hO XRISTOS hUIOS DAUID ESTIN; "Christ is the Son of David". I'm afraid your friend is simply incorrect on this point.

The being said the formula used in Luke's genealogy given the context clearly and uambiguously denotes a blood relationship rather than a figurative one.

Amos

There is no argument and Jesus the Christ was the first-born son of man in the line of Joseph who was of the line of David. The secret lies in the word first-born.

diana

The being said the formula used in Luke's genealogy given the context clearly and uambiguously denotes a blood relationship rather than a figurative one.

Can you please elaborate, CX?

Thanks.

d

Amos

bump