Jim Parker
Member
Please!
That's a total cop-out and circular reasoning.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Harmony of the Gospels
- Thread starter Cyberseeker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harmony john synoptic problem
That's a total cop-out and circular reasoning.
Cyberseeker,
Since you aren't breezy and since you're very worried about harmonizing the gospels and discrepancies and all that...
Could YOU please explain about the cleansing of the temple. What is your idea on the dating of the event?
Also, IS this apologetics??
From Wikipedia:
Christianity[edit]
The Scutum Fidei, a diagram frequently used by Christian apologists to explain the Trinity.
Main article: Christian apologetics
Christian apologetics combines Christian theology, natural theology,[12] and philosophy to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation.
Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries. In the Roman Empire, Christians were severely persecuted, and many charges were brought against them. J. David Cassel[13] gives several examples: Tacitus wrote that Nero fabricated charges that Christians started the burning of Rome.[14] Other charges included cannibalism (due to a literal interpretation of the Eucharist) and incest (due to early Christians' practice of addressing each other as "brother" and "sister"). Saul of Tarsus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others often defended Christianity against charges that were brought to justify persecution.[15]
Later apologists have focused on providing reasons to accept various aspects of Christian belief. Christian apologists of many traditions, in common with Jews, Muslims, and some others, argue for the existence of a unique and personal God. Theodicy is one important aspect of such arguments, and Alvin Plantinga's arguments have been highly influential in this area. Many prominent Christian apologists are scholarly philosophers or theologians, frequently with additional doctoral work in physics, cosmology, comparative religions, or other fields. Others take a more popular or pastoral approach. Some prominent modern apologists are Douglas Groothuis, Frederick Copleston, John Lennox, Walter R. Martin, Dinesh D'Souza, Douglas Wilson, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, Greg Bahnsen, Edward John Carnell, James White, Hank Hanegraaff, Ravi Zacharias, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Peter Kreeft, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, David Bentley Hart, Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler and Scott Hahn.[16]
Christian apologists employ a variety of philosophical and formal approaches, including ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.[17] The Christian presuppositionalist approach to apologetics utilizes the Transcendental argument for the existence of God.[18]
Tertullian was a notable early Christian apologist. He was born, lived and died in Carthage. He is sometimes known as the "Father of the Latin Church". He introduced the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) to the Christian vocabulary[19] and also probably[citation needed] the formula "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostaseis, Homoousios"), and also the terms Vetus Testamentum (Old Testament) and Novum Testamentum (New Testament).
chessman
Member
John records an early cleansing of the temple courts by Jesus at the time Jesus was just beginning His ministry (just after turning water into wine). Jesus had no encounter with the High Priest at this time. Mark does not record these events (the wine or the first Temple cleansing) but picks up just after it. Jesus was staying in Capernaum (in Galilee on the shores of the Sea) with His mother and brothers at this early stage and entered the City (Jerusalem) after journeying there from Capernaum (100 miles and multiple days journey) on this occasion. In contrast to Mark's record of Jesus' cleansing the Temple during Passion Week (end of His ministry) after entering the City from Bethany (about 4 miles from the Temple) multiple times this week when his brothers were not with Him. After this cleansing, the High Priest began to plot against Him and accomplished it. Clearly two different occasions.
John 2:11 (LEB) This beginning of signs Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee, and revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
Jesus’ First Journey to Jerusalem
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, and his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. 13 And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
The Cleansing of the Temple
14 And he found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated. 15 And he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, both the sheep and the oxen, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, and his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. 13 And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
The Cleansing of the Temple
14 And he found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated. 15 And he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, both the sheep and the oxen, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
The Triumphal Entry
Mark 11:11-19 (NASB) 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late.12 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry. 13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” And His disciples were listening.
Jesus Drives Money Changers from the Temple
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 16 and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. 17 And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers’18 The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.19 When evening came, they would go out of the city.
The God fearing Gentiles were supposed to be allowed into the outer court of the Temple to conduct prayers. They couldn't do that with all of the money changers and selling of Jewish sacrificial animals going on there instead. He was foreshadowing the Gospel coming to the Gentiles.Mark 11:11-19 (NASB) 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late.12 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry. 13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” And His disciples were listening.
Jesus Drives Money Changers from the Temple
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; 16 and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. 17 And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers’18 The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.19 When evening came, they would go out of the city.
Jim Parker
Member
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Also, IS this apologetics??
From Wikipedia:
Christianity[edit]
The Scutum Fidei, a diagram frequently used by Christian apologists to explain the Trinity.
FYI: The diagram you have posted is from the Western (Roman) Church after the addition of the filioque to the Creed which was officially accepted by the popes after 1014. The words "and from the Son" (Latin: filioque) were added to the Nicene/Constantinople creed changing it from: "I believe in the Holy Spirit......Who proceeds from the Father" (Jhn 15:26) to "...Who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
This was a unilateral change to the creed. The creed, with reference to the Holy Spirit, had already been established by the counsel of Constantinople in 381which was called to refute attempts by neo-Platonists to make the Holy Spirit less than fully God as they had done previously when Arius of Alexandria began to teach that Jesus was an lesser being than the Father. (neo-Platonism again)
The council of Constantinople was an ecumenical council of bishops from the entire Church as were all the 7 great councils. The unilateral addition of the filioque to the creed by the Roman church was a departure from the precedent of the entire church coming together to decide issues of doctrine and was part of the East-West controversy which eventually split the Church into what today are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches.
The problem with the filioque is illustrated by the diagram you posted. The Holy Spirit is subordinated to the Father and the Son. The proper arrangement, which more accurately reflects the Trinity, would be a triangle with the base at the bottom and the point at the top.
http://generationword.com/images/bible_school/maps/theology/trinity_diagram.gif
BY this arrangement, the proper relationship between the Father and the Son (begotten of the Father [Jhn 1:18]) and the Holy Spirit (proceeds from the Father) is illustrated.
Just a little church history FYI.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Last edited:
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
I read that book a long while back!
Hi Jim,
From what little I know, the Creed of 381 was declared to not be correct. The church referred back to the creed of 325.
I see the difference you're speaking of.
In my diagram, the H.S. is at the bottom and shows it to proceed from the Father and the Son.
In your diagram, both the Son and the H.S. proceed from the Father.
Did I understand correctly?
To tell you the truth, as long as one believes in the Trinity, I don't delve too much into details because, quite frankly, I feel I'll never really understand it.
I just like to know that all 3 are God
And all three are in ONE.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
I want to comment on this post but want to be sure I am understanding correctly. Firstly, I assume you mean by cop-out is the position that the temple cleansing happened twice. I don't see how that is a cop out. Most apologetic sites I've visited put it this way. It's pretty clear to me that this is what happened. And why not? Jesus likely visited the temple more than once and who is to say He didn't clear it more than twice?!
I'm at a total loss as to how the post to which you are giving comment is circular in reasoning.
First up: There are many who see the Gospels as history. Something doesn't have to be stated chronologically to be historical. The account of Jesus' crucifixion is history. It happened in history. To record it is to record history. It doesn't mean that the Gospel were meant to be written as history but certainly we believe they are historical. The following are interesting and I just listened to them recently:
http://podcast.comereason.org/2017/03/why-gospels-are-history-part-1_5.html
http://podcast.comereason.org/2017/03/why-gospels-are-history-part-2.html
http://podcast.comereason.org/2017/03/why-gospels-are-history-part-3.html
You can also go here: http://podcast.comereason.org/ and find all three together. I post this just to show that there are others who view the Gospels (correctly in my view) as History.
Next: The recording of the Temple cleansings is a historical account of two separate events. Here's how one apologetic site explains it: https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html
Bart Ehrman says of the two accounts: “Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.”
But is that true? The Gospel writers did not provide an exhaustive account of everything that Jesus every said or did. This is perhaps the best explanation I have read: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=660
IMHO it's uncharitable to characterize such explanations as cop-outs or circular reasoning (unless I'm misunderstanding you in which case I apologize ahead of time). True John wasn't that concerned with chronology but it doesn't follow from that that he'd put something at the beginning of Jesus' ministry when it was stated by others to be at the end. On the contrary, it's clear to me that John is interested in chronology to some degree as evidenced by how he puts this story where it belongs: in the beginning of Jesus' ministry. I've no doubt that Jesus had to clear out the Temple of wrong doings more than once. That makes perfect sense and is the best explanation given the evidence.
For anyone reading along...
It's not a theological book...anyone can read it.
It explains in very intelligent answers how all of the explanations for the resurrection fail, except for one --- that it really happened.
It's a good book to read for those who like apologetics.
I truly doubt Jesus would have cleaned out the temple at the beginning of His ministry. I do believe that during Holy Week He did visit the temple more than once.
Because something is mentioned as happening only once, does not mean it didn't happen another time also.
This is why I hate to classify the N.T. as history.
History must be exact, or it becomes non-reliable.
This is a perfect example. I don't expect history, so I don't care as to John's chronology, if it happened once or twice. It is good to know these things when speaking to others - but those we witness to most probably would not know something of this nature.
OTOH, those who do view the N.T. as being historical, will be very interested and maybe even disturbed at the fact that this discrepancy exists, or other alleged discrepancies.
So the N.T. contains history, but it is not about history.
It's written for Jesus' followers, to teach them how Jesus was, what He expects of them, and the story of His death and resurrection.
1 John 1:1-4
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
I alway enjoy reading your insights and thoughts. Gives me more to think about. I think we approach this from two different angles but I like how you think about it. I like especially this: "So the N.T. contains history, but it is not about history. It's written for Jesus' followers, to teach them how Jesus was, what He expects of them, and the story of His death and resurrection." I'd probably say it a tad differently but I think in the end, we're in agreement here.
Jim Parker
Member
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
A Gospel is not the transcript of the video tape; it is the presentation of the work of God in Jesus Christ to destroy the power of sin to cause permanent, physical death to mankind and thereby destroy the image and likeness of God in which mankind was created and to thwart the purpose of God that all mankind would obtain immortality.
The order of events is not the important part; the story of the work of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection is the important part.
IN the 1st century middle east, reporting of events focused on the key issue of the event. Having a precise chronology of the events leading up to the key issue was of very little concern. This is not modern news reporting or modern history. To apply the standards of history and reporting of 21st century America to 1st century middle eastern literature is totally inappropriate.
So, to say that the cleansing of the temple had to have been done twice because it appears at different points in different Gospels completely ignores the very important and great differences between modern western reporting and ancient middle eastern reporting. All we can say about the cleansing appearing at different points in Jesus' ministry is that the evangelists inserted the cleansing pericope where itr best fit their narrative and nothing more.
Again, this is 1str century, middle eastern literature. It is completely inappropriate to apply 21st century western ideas about how history and reporting is to be done. Those concepts did not exist at the time and place of the writing of the Gospels.
Saying that it had to have happened twice because it appears at different places in different Gospels and offering as proof the notion that if it didn't happen twice, it would have appeared in the same place in both Gospels is circular reasoning.
You assume that accurately reporting the chronology of Jesus' acts is important to John because he put an act at a place in time in his Gospel.
That says nothing at all about John's concern with chronology. It shows that John chose to place that pericope at that point in His Gospel no matter when it occurred during Jesus' ministry.
Jesus may well have driven the money lenders et. al. out of the temple twice or, maybe, every time He visited Jerusalem. But the Gospels themselves, as ancient ,middle eastern, gospels, do not provide proof of two cleansings.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
What your apologetic sites apparently missed is that the Gospels do not purport to be a precise, chronological, report of the ministry of Jesus.
A Gospel is not the transcript of the video tape; it is the presentation of the work of God in Jesus Christ to destroy the power of sin to cause permanent, physical death to mankind and thereby destroy the image and likeness of God in which mankind was created and to thwart the purpose of God that all mankind would obtain immortality.
The order of events is not the important part; the story of the work of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection is the important part.
IN the 1st century middle east, reporting of events focused on the key issue of the event. Having a precise chronology of the events leading up to the key issue was of very little concern. This is not modern news reporting or modern history. To apply the standards of history and reporting of 21st century America to 1st century middle eastern literature is totally inappropriate.
So, to say that the cleansing of the temple had to have been done twice because it appears at different points in different Gospels completely ignores the very important and great differences between modern western reporting and ancient middle eastern reporting. All we can say about the cleansing appearing at different points in Jesus' ministry is that the evangelists inserted the cleansing pericope where itr best fit their narrative and nothing more.
They are mistaken. They are not histories; they are Gospels. Those are two very different types of literature.
And that's as far as I need to go. I can stop at "historically speaking" because a Gospel is not a history.
Why not? John had very specific issues that he addressed in his Gospel which were not clearly addressed in the synoptic.
Again, this is 1str century, middle eastern literature. It is completely inappropriate to apply 21st century western ideas about how history and reporting is to be done. Those concepts did not exist at the time and place of the writing of the Gospels.
Saying that it had to have happened twice because it appears at different places in different Gospels and offering as proof the notion that if it didn't happen twice, it would have appeared in the same place in both Gospels is circular reasoning.
And that is a demonstration of circular reasoning.
You assume that accurately reporting the chronology of Jesus' acts is important to John because he put an act at a place in time in his Gospel.
That says nothing at all about John's concern with chronology. It shows that John chose to place that pericope at that point in His Gospel no matter when it occurred during Jesus' ministry.
It makes sense only if you misapply modern western standards of history and reporting to ancient, middle eastern, Gospels. And since such an application it completely illogical and inappropriate, your "best explanation" fails to explain anything at all.
Jesus may well have driven the money lenders et. al. out of the temple twice or, maybe, every time He visited Jerusalem. But the Gospels themselves, as ancient ,middle eastern, gospels, do not provide proof of two cleansings.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Last edited:
Jim Parker
Member
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Son is "begotten of" the Father and the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father.
Now, exactly what does "begotten" and "proceed" mean?
Got me.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Not quite.
The Son is "begotten of" the Father and the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father.
Now, exactly what does "begotten" and "proceed" mean?
Got me.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
Now I'm sure we see this differently. The Gospels are either historical (and therefore history - not as in genre but as in the fact they detail historical events) or the events are made up. It's entirely possible for there to have been two different event recorded. And the details don't even match. Which to me is significant. Either way, people are free to make up their own mind as it's not a critical issue.
Jim Parker
Member
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
What we call "history" today, in the West, is a specific kind of literature which has as it's purpose the recording of events as they happened in time.
An ancient, middle eastern, Gospel is an entirely different kind of literature. It's purpose is not to present a blow-by-blow account of what happened but to present an important event (Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection) and include supporting and introductory material such as, healing the sick, casting out demons, walking on water, raising the dead, and cleansing the temple. Those events most assuredly took place but, the chronology of them in the Gospels is not important. What is important is THAT they took place, not WHEN they took place.
You are insisting on inserting modern western concepts into ancient, middle eastern literature. As long as you persist in doing so, you will arrive at false conclusions.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
That is false.
What we call "history" today, in the West, is a specific kind of literature which has as it's purpose the recording of events as they happened in time.
An ancient, middle eastern, Gospel is an entirely different kind of literature. It's purpose is not to present a blow-by-blow account of what happened but to present an important event (Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection) and include supporting and introductory material such as, healing the sick, casting out demons, walking on water, raising the dead, and cleansing the temple. Those events most assuredly took place but, the chronology of them in the Gospels is not important. What is important is THAT they took place, not WHEN they took place.
You are insisting on inserting modern western concepts into ancient, middle eastern literature. As long as you persist in doing so, you will arrive at false conclusions.
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
You are now talking past me, refuting things I never said and disagreeing with positions I don't even hold.
Jim Parker
Member
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Either they are History or they contain Historical Facts.
I hold that they are Gospels which contain historical facts.
But they are not "History" in that they are not a presentation of the facts, chronologically, as each event took place.
It seemed to me you were having it both ways.
Now I see that is not what you meant.
(OOooooops!
)
Looks like we may agree.....kinda......sorta......maybe.......
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
You said: "The Gospels are either historical (and therefore history - not as in genre but as in the fact they detail historical events) or the events are made up."
Either they are History or they contain Historical Facts.
I hold that they are Gospels which contain historical facts.
But they are not "History" in that they are not a presentation of the facts, chronologically, as each event took place.
It seemed to me you were having it both ways.
Now I see that is not what you meant.
(OOooooops!
)Looks like we may agree.....kinda......sorta......maybe.......
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
Likely our views have more in common than they do differences.Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
You said: "The Gospels are either historical (and therefore history - not as in genre but as in the fact they detail historical events) or the events are made up."
Either they are History or they contain Historical Facts.
I hold that they are Gospels which contain historical facts.
But they are not "History" in that they are not a presentation of the facts, chronologically, as each event took place.
It seemed to me you were having it both ways.
Now I see that is not what you meant.
(OOooooops!
Looks like we may agree.....kinda......sorta......maybe.......
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Cyberseeker
Member
The gospels of Mark, Luke, and John are very good chronological accounts of Jesus ministry. So is Matthew, but in the case of Matthew he writes thematically and hence out of sequence sometimes.
Yes, there were 2 cleansings of the temple, one in April AD 27 and the next on 3rd April AD 30.
Yes, there were 2 cleansings of the temple, one in April AD 27 and the next on 3rd April AD 30.
Douglas Summers
Member
There is no disharmony with the 3 synoptic gospels and the Book of John. Each one has a purpose to the nature of Christ unto mankind. Matthew presents Christ as King and son of David to Israel. Mark reveals Christ as a servant to mankind.(written for the Romans) Luke presents Christ as the Son of man,(written for the Greek, Gentile), and John gives proof of His deity. (He is God and Savior) (John 20:31). The above map is explained better in the "The Chronological Gospels" By Michael John Rood.It has been exceedingly difficult to harmonise the gospel of John with Matthew, Mark and Luke during the time of Jesus' early ministry. This is because the synoptic gospels miss out the time from his temptation unto his Galilean ministry. They jump straight from in the wilderness in Judea to Galilee. John, on the other hand, details several months between in Judea and Samaria.
Here is a diagram that is easy to follow. (man I looove the new svg format) I hope it helps anyone who might have problems with so-called contradictions in the New Testament.
Jim Parker
Member
and you know this how?