Harmony of the Gospels

[Pegasus]

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]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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?

 

[GodsGrace]

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]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

BTW,
This might be of interest to you.
For me it holds no interest at all...

https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

 

[Cyberseeker]

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!

 

[GodsGrace]

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]

Also, did you see post no. 15?

That is why I said to Pegasus, "good catch!"

 

[By Grace]

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.

 

[Free]

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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...

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

 

[Runner]

You think the historical parts help us to believe???
Which part?

Uh, those concerning the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, perhaps?

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

 

[Runner]

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.