Christian Forums

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!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Harmony of the Gospels

Pegasus

Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
1,215
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Interesting, but I do note that the OP was asking about a harmony of the Gospels. (posted as a fact, and not an attempt to moderate)
My apologies, I guess we went off topic a bit discussing the date range of the Gospels. wondering made a point that some events experienced but written years later may not have many of the details sharp. That's where she mentioned a date range, and I provided what you quoted from as perhaps a reference guide for those interested.
 

By Grace

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,526
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
My apologies, I guess we went off topic a bit discussing the date range of the Gospels. wondering made a point that some events experienced but written years later may not have many of the details sharp. That's where she mentioned a date range, and I provided what you quoted from as perhaps a reference guide for those interested.
As I noted, I was not attempting to moderate you, bro. Your post was germane to what she asked.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Good catch!

Also missing in the BC/AD year designation is the fact that there is no "year zero" and the fact that the date of the exact time (let alone season) of the birth of Jesus has never been accurately stated, anywhere.

That is because the times and date of events are stated in relation to the rulers of nations. Isiah stated, "In the year that King Uzziah died..." and so forth
Jesus probably was born about 6 or 7 BC.
It was supposed to be zero but the person who drew up the calendar for the church made a mistake.
Cannot remember the year,,, maybe the 4th century?
Sorry not home.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Jesus probably was born about 6 or 7 BC.
It was supposed to be zero but the person who drew up the calendar for the church made a mistake.
Cannot remember the year,,, maybe the 4th century?
Sorry not home.
Also, did you see post no. 15?
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
That is an early range so I would concur. Here is a listing of Christian theologians and the average dates of each NT book:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/bible/dating-nt-chronological_order.htm

{The above was prepared by Dr. Gary Butner ThD, with all permissions granted for use in this discussion.}
Hi Pegasus,
It would seem from your link that Mark is indeed the first gospel written.
From my last information there was doubt as to whether Mark or Mathew was the first. In the end, what does it matter?

I have 6 pages worth of the events of Jesus' ministry.
Theologians don't even agree 100% on the dating of the events. Some are sure, but some are not. There's a question as to the census.

Personally, I've stopped thinking about this. All the gospels were written to familiarize future readers with Jesus and to write down what had happened.
They certainly were not meant to be a real historical account of what happened but a spiritual account.

So each writer wrote down what was important to him. It is evident that Mathew and Mark copied from each other - If it is Mark, so be it.

John seems to be the least concerned with dates. He was beloved. He loved Jesus. He was the most spiritual.

Let me stop.
 

Free

Member
From
AB, Canada
Gender
Male
Messages
13,677
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
They certainly were not meant to be a real historical account of what happened but a spiritual account.
On the contrary:

Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (ESV)

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (ESV)

Luke and John certainly thought that they were writing historical accounts--that was the whole point of them writing.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
On the contrary:

Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (ESV)

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (ESV)

Luke and John certainly thought that they were writing historical accounts--that was the whole point of them writing.
A historical account of the civil war will tell you why it was fought, where it was fought, who won and why.

A spiritual account of the civil war will tell you how it affected persons and families and soldiers and friends.

The N.T. wasn't written to tell us what date Jesus was born, or where He was born
or where He preached on what day and on what hill...

The N.T. was written to tell us WHO Jesus is and why it's important to know HIM.
Mark 8:29
John 20:31
 

Cyberseeker

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
426
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
A historical account of the civil war will tell you why it was fought, where it was fought, who won and why.

A spiritual account of the civil war will tell you how it affected persons and families and soldiers and friends.

The N.T. wasn't written to tell us what date Jesus was born, or where He was born
or where He preached on what day and on what hill...

The N.T. was written to tell us WHO Jesus is and why it's important to know HIM.
Mark 8:29
John 20:31

Hang on a bit Sis. No one would disagree with your 'spiritual' emphasis, but both are important. History is related to prophecy, and the fulfillment of Messianic (1st coming) prophecy is very important.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Hang on a bit Sis. No one would disagree with your 'spiritual' emphasis, but both are important. History is related to prophecy, and the fulfillment of Messianic (1st coming) prophecy is very important.
I didn't say it wasn't important.
I didn't say there's no history in the N.T.
That would be pretty dumb of me.

I said that's NOT THE REASON THE N.T. WAS WRITTEN.

Please note the difference.
 

Cyberseeker

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
426
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
I didn't say it wasn't important.
I didn't say there's no history in the N.T.
That would be pretty dumb of me.

I said that's NOT THE REASON THE N.T. WAS WRITTEN.

Please note the difference.

Well, a lot of Christian scholars depreciate the value of St. John as being reliable in its history, and out of sequence in its chronology. Neither claim is true!
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Well, a lot of Christian scholars depreciate the value of St. John as being reliable in its history, and out of sequence in its chronology. Neither claim is true!
John is out of sequence in chronology.
Like me, he didn't think it was very important.
And I wouldn't devalue anything John said. He said things the others didn't and which are a treasure for Christians.

I believe I stated on a different post how much I love John...
 

By Grace

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,526
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
John is out of sequence in chronology.
Like me, he didn't think it was very important.
And I wouldn't devalue anything John said. He said things the others didn't and which are a treasure for Christians.

I believe I stated on a different post how much I love John...
this is "controversial" for some, but each of the Gospel writers had a different 'audience" in mind, so they specifically tailored their versions of the Gospel to reach their audience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Free

Member
From
AB, Canada
Gender
Male
Messages
13,677
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
A historical account of the civil war will tell you why it was fought, where it was fought, who won and why.

A spiritual account of the civil war will tell you how it affected persons and families and soldiers and friends.
I don't see how that is a "spiritual account," never mind how it could be considered a spiritual account in he same way that the gospels might be considered a spiritual account.

I should have asked but what do you even mean by "spiritual account"?

The N.T. wasn't written to tell us what date Jesus was born, or where He was born
or where He preached on what day and on what hill...
Then why do you think we are given those details?

The N.T. was written to tell us WHO Jesus is and why it's important to know HIM.
Mark 8:29
John 20:31
You simply cannot separate who Jesus is from what he has done. The whole point of giving us historical accounts was to prove that Jesus was who he said he was, the Son of God. The gospels most certainly were meant to be historical accounts; they even say so themselves.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I don't see how that is a "spiritual account," never mind how it could be considered a spiritual account in he same way that the gospels might be considered a spiritual account.

I should have asked but what do you even mean by "spiritual account"?


Then why do you think we are given those details?


You simply cannot separate who Jesus is from what he has done. The whole point of giving us historical accounts was to prove that Jesus was who he said he was, the Son of God. The gospels most certainly were meant to be historical accounts; they even say so themselves.
Jesus as a historical figure.
Just what the kids in College learn and helps to make them into atheists.

You can think what you want to Free.
This is not a matter of contention for me.
If it's history to you, fine.

For ME, it's the story of how God became man for our benefit.

P.S.
You think the historical parts help us to believe???
Which part?
This must be why so many that read the N.T. become believers...
We wish...
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
this is "controversial" for some, but each of the Gospel writers had a different 'audience" in mind, so they specifically tailored their versions of the Gospel to reach their audience.
No controversy.
Each gospel WAS written for a different audience and/or a different purpose.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,641
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Uh, those concerning the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, perhaps?
Oh stop please.
And read what I said.
WHAT DAY DID THE CRUCIFICTION TAKE PLACE???
Are you sure it was on Friday, and not on Wed, or Thurs?
There is a question about this as you must surely know.

And how can I know the resurrection is true?
Who else wrote about it except the APOSTLES???

If one understands what I'm saying,
FINE,

If one does NOT understand what I'm saying,
THAT'S FINE TOO.

This I know for sure:

THE BIBLE CONTAINS HISTORY BUT IT IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK.

IT'S THE STORY OF GOD AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE.

Anyone reading along has the freedom and privilege of understanding the reason for the bible's existence to be what they want it to be.

It has no bearing on our salvation.
 
R

Runner

Guest
Oh stop please.
And read what I said.
WHAT DAY DID THE CRUCIFICTION TAKE PLACE???
Are you sure it was on Friday, and not on Wed, or Thurs?
There is a question about this as you must surely know.

And how can I know the resurrection is true?
Who else wrote about it except the APOSTLES???

Truly, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are most certainly sowing confusion.

Because the day of the Crucifixion is not clearly specified, this renders the Biblical account "un-historical" in your mind? Because only the Apostles provided accounts of the Resurrection, this renders the accounts "un-historical" in your mind?

The Resurrection is presented in the Bible, first and foremost, as a literal, historical event. Paul clearly recognized this fact in 1 Corinthians 15. The meaning of the Resurrection, which the Bible likewise presents, is a matter of faith. But without the literal, historical event, the meaning of the Resurrection is: precisely nothing.

The historical reliability of the Gospels may be open for discussion, but they are indeed historical accounts. (And the trend of the discussion is toward them being reliable historical accounts. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906.)

Perhaps you are confused about the distinction between "secular history" and "sacred history." The Bible is obviously not secular history. But more than any other religion, Christianity hinges on the historical reality of its claims.
 
Top