The Resurrection accounts

[stovebolts]

John does not write to accommodate a logical perspective. He accommodates a theological perspective and John is not anti-Peter.

Anyway, I disagree with your anti and pro Peter views as if the Gospels are pitted against one another.

Perhaps if you studied who these accounts were written to, you would understand their differences and why the differences existed.

Personally, I respect a logical approach, but I admire a good theological line of thought. I appreciate genealogy and find value in it, but I'd rather hear what somebody did, rather than who they were. However, sometimes who somebody was and what they did in light of a situation is monument in scripture. So, unless you realize these two aspects, you won't catch what the author is trying to convey. In other words, it's more than data.

But that's sort of my point. If each author describes the events with this kind of agenda, doesn't that make them less helpful as witnesses of what actually happened? A good witness, after all, is impartial.

A good witness will reveal what needs to be revealed to paint a picture in the mind of the hearer (or reader) that they can understand. As a gentile, no value is seen in genealogy, so why bore them with meaningless detail? I would suggest that the pantheon held more meaning to the gentiles than genealogy or Temple language...

As far as a witness being impartial, lets be real here. Your looking for a sterile environment with no objectives or agenda's. You won't find that environment within the Biblical texts. As in Luke's account, he did his homework from reliable sources and his agenda is to report what he has ardently studied. This is much like a scientist who studies a subject and then goes on to report his findings. Thus, Luke's objective is to convey what he has found as an orderly account, and his agenda is, "most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." And this extends outward to the community.

So the question becomes bob, what is your objective and what is your agenda? If your agenda is to discredit the Gospels, then you will view the gospels with that lens. You see, we all have our bias, but it's understanding our bias that allows us to be honest with ourselves and those around us.

 

[logical bob]

John does not write to accommodate a logical perspective. He accommodates a theological perspective and John is not anti-Peter.

Don't get hung up on my user-name! It's just one I've been using for ages, it's not meant to suggest that I'm uber logical. Theological argument is fine with me because, as you say, that's what John's all about.

On five of his six appearances the disciple Jesus loved serves as a putdown to Peter. He's the intermediary Peter has to go through to get to Jesus (13:24), Peter can't get into the High Priest's courtyard (surely a symbol for Judaism) without his intervention (18:15-17), he outruns Peter to the tomb and believes first, recognises Jesus before Peter (21:7) and at the very end has a role too special to be disclosed to Peter (21:22). It's there in the text. I think it's the Christian tradition that reads this too logically, assuming that this disciple must be a specific one of the twelve rather than a literary device.

Perhaps if you studied who these accounts were written to, you would understand their differences and why the differences existed.

Could you could give me a brief explanation or suggest some reading?

So, unless you realize these two aspects, you won't catch what the author is trying to convey. In other words, it's more than data.

Agreed.

As far as a witness being impartial, lets be real here. Your looking for a sterile environment with no objectives or agenda's. You won't find that environment within the Biblical texts.

I completely agree. There's no such thing as a pure objective witness. But with any witness, biblical or not, one should recognise the agenda and be a little wary of information that matches it too neatly.

As in Luke's account, he did his homework from reliable sources and his agenda is to report what he has ardently studied. This is much like a scientist who studies a subject and then goes on to report his findings. Thus, Luke's objective is to convey what he has found as an orderly account, and his agenda is, "most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." And this extends outward to the community.

OK, I see what you meant now. Luke has plenty of theology and literary stuff as well though, it isn't all logic!

So the question becomes bob, what is your objective and what is your agenda? If your agenda is to discredit the Gospels, then you will view the gospels with that lens. You see, we all have our bias, but it's understanding our bias that allows us to be honest with ourselves and those around us.

I am being honest here. I have my views as you have yours, but what I want to do here is understand the Gospels and why they are the way they are. Whatever else they might be they're fascinating and complex, so discedit certainly isn't a word I'd use.

I started the thread because I've been told three times by Christians that if I read the resurrection accounts I should see that the truth of the resurrection was the best logical (their word not mine) explanation. This puzzled me, like I said, and having read the thoughts of you and other people I realise that this isn't a general Christian view.

 

[Free]

I started the thread because I've been told three times by Christians that if I read the resurrection accounts I should see that the truth of the resurrection was the best logical (their word not mine) explanation. This puzzled me, like I said, and having read the thoughts of you and other people I realise that this isn't a general Christian view.

I think the general Christian view is that the resurrection is the most plausible reason for the empty tomb, which is in all four accounts. That is the main point of the four accounts, that some of the details are different is of little consequence.

 

[westtexas]

Also, within the Roman culture, it wasn't the resurrection that was the big whoop. A Roman would look at the resurrection and basically say, "So what, all leaders claim a resurrection..." That being the case, can you tell me what was the big whoop as far as the Romans were concerned when they read the Gospel?

C'mon now, don't leave us hanging. Let's be like Paul Harvey and tell us "the rest of the story"
Westtexas

 

[stovebolts]

On five of his six appearances the disciple Jesus loved serves as a putdown to Peter. He's the intermediary Peter has to go through to get to Jesus (13:24), Peter can't get into the High Priest's courtyard (surely a symbol for Judaism) without his intervention (18:15-17), he outruns Peter to the tomb and believes first, recognises Jesus before Peter (21:7) and at the very end has a role too special to be disclosed to Peter (21:22). It's there in the text. I think it's the Christian tradition that reads this too logically, assuming that this disciple must be a specific one of the twelve rather than a literary device.

You site above how John "put's down" Peter, but when I read the accounts, I see how Peter is being transformed. For example, you will find the word anthrakia twice in the entire bible. The word is translated as "Coals". The first time is in 18:18 and the second time is found in 21:9 which ironically relate to what you have written. Ask yourself, what is the significance of this unasuming detail? BTW, did you know how John died? How did the other apostles die?

Perhaps if you studied who these accounts were written to, you would understand their differences and why the differences existed.

Could you could give me a brief explanation or suggest some reading?

That's a pretty big request. A good Jew always retells the story so in John's case, it's good to understand the story the way the jews understood the story. Of course, it starts off with Creation, the garden, the fall, the flood, the patriarchs, exile, exodus and redemption as the story repeats itself in terms of exile, exodus and redemption , pretty much in that order while churning ever closer to consumation.

As an example to the quote above, John is writing from a new exodus perspective. Now then, want to learn about the first miracle? Find out where the city was located. What was the city known for? What ethnicity was promenant? Now, like the Exodus in Egypt, each one of God's wonders was targeted at a specific Egyptian God. Ask yourself, what greek god was Jesus targeting when he turned the water into wine? Once you have that, learn about that god and the significance of the miracle becomes apparent. You see, it's not just about the idea of turning water into wine, it's so much more. It's a whole ideology.

I am being honest here. I have my views as you have yours, but what I want to do here is understand the Gospels and why they are the way they are. Whatever else they might be they're fascinating and complex, so discedit certainly isn't a word I'd use.

Thank you for your honesty. I used to look at the texts as data and it wasn't until I dropped the idea that scripture was data that I began to better understand what was being conveyed. I won't claim that I"ve got any piece of scripture "nailed" and I've still got a lot to learn.

I started the thread because I've been told three times by Christians that if I read the resurrection accounts I should see that the truth of the resurrection was the best logical (their word not mine) explanation. This puzzled me, like I said, and having read the thoughts of you and other people I realise that this isn't a general Christian view.

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

You will no doubt find much diversity amonst Christians… But it is our faith in Jesus, that he died and rose again that unites us.

 

[logical bob]

You site above how John "put's down" Peter, but when I read the accounts, I see how Peter is being transformed. For example, you will find the word anthrakia twice in the entire bible. The word is translated as "Coals". The first time is in 18:18 and the second time is found in 21:9 which ironically relate to what you have written. Ask yourself, what is the significance of this unasuming detail?

Presumably it links Peter's three denials with his three affirmations at the end. I think you may well be right there, but I stand by my reading as well.

BTW, did you know how John died? How did the other apostles die?

I believe he's said to have lived to a ripe old age, which was unusual for an apostle. I take it you're referring to the suggested longevity of the beloved disciple in John 21.

The rest of your post on the significance of the seven signs is difficult for me to comment on. I'm familiar with the idea that the water into wine demonstrates superiority over Dionysus but I'm afraid that's about it.

 

[francisdesales]

The rest of your post on the significance of the seven signs is difficult for me to comment on. I'm familiar with the idea that the water into wine demonstrates superiority over Dionysus but I'm afraid that's about it.

Dionysius? HA, No, this is a story about the superiority of what Jesus offers vs the Old Covenant...

-The jars used for Old Covenant rituals. Empty.
-The wine first used. Not as good.
-The headwaiter - recognizes the situation, the better is saved for last.

Of course, the time of the Messiah is marked by the wedding feast, and Jesus provides, more than can be imagined. Recall, when John writes, this is a time where the Jews had extreme dislike for the Christians and the Christians had to put this together on why the Jews refused to see their Messiah.

By the way, regarding Peter v John, I've read that the end of John's Gospel affirms that authority and mysticism can work together - Peter representing authority, John representing mysticism. Many feel that they are mutually exclusive, but Christ Himself is the example.

Regards

 

[freeway]

logical bob, if I may add my cents. Although all four accounts do have women going to the tomb of Jesus and that all four account Matt: Mark: Luke: and John, It is women that make the initial discovery of the missing body of Jesus and these women are the one that go back and tell the story. It is also these women that the writers of four gospels begin their accounts of the resurrection. Did you know that the testimony of women in those days were of no importances. Women where not allow to be a witness in a court of law. So if the writers of the gospels want to drum up this resurrection, all four writer knew the law, and for them to use women as the first creditable wittiness was taking a huge chance, if this is just a made up story to cover up or to further their agenda. Never the less each writer says it was women who made the first discovery. Why would they do that? Why not just drop the womens account and start off with Peter, John and the other nine disciples to make it seem more presentable.. But it is God telling the story through men.. He knew what the outcome would be..

 

[Physicist]

logical bob, if I may add my cents. Although all four accounts do have women going to the tomb of Jesus and that all four account Matt: Mark: Luke: and John, It is women that make the initial discovery of the missing body of Jesus and these women are the one that go back and tell the story. It is also these women that the writers of four gospels begin their accounts of the resurrection. Did you know that the testimony of women in those days were of no importances. Women where not allow to be a witness in a court of law. So if the writers of the gospels want to drum up this resurrection, all four writer knew the law, and for them to use women as the first creditable wittiness was taking a huge chance, if this is just a made up story to cover up or to further their agenda. Never the less each writer says it was women who made the first discovery. Why would they do that? Why not just drop the womens account and start off with Peter, John and the other nine disciples to make it seem more presentable.. But it is God telling the story through men.. He knew what the outcome would be..

First, I think it is highly speculative to impute motives to the anonymous gospel authors. Having said that, I will now speculate .

The Mark author ended his story with only the women seeing the young man at the tomb. No apostle and no resurrected Jesus appearance. The women leave and tell no one. This would be consistent with the author writing a work of didactic fiction since a climax including dramatic appearance by a rising God in front of large crowds would invite skepticism from readers who had heard no such reports. This is the conclusion of such liberal Christian authors as Bishop Spong.

The later gospel authors, further removed from the actual events, would be free to embellish their endings with more spectacular scenes.

 

[Free]

The Mark author ended his story with only the women seeing the young man at the tomb. No apostle and no resurrected Jesus appearance. The women leave and tell no one. This would be consistent with the author writing a work of didactic fiction since a climax including dramatic appearance by a rising God in front of large crowds would invite skepticism from readers who had heard no such reports. This is the conclusion of such liberal Christian authors as Bishop Spong.

Except this misses one important detail: Mark doesn't end there, not even the "short" version:

Mar 16:6 "Don't be alarmed," he told them. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been resurrected! He is not here! See the place where they put Him.
Mar 16:7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see Him there just as He told you.'"
Mar 16:8 So they went out and started running from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid.

Then come the debatable verses (9-20).

 

[freeway]

Physicist wrote:
First, I think it is highly speculative to impute motives to the anonymous gospel authors. Having said that, I will now speculate .

The Mark author ended his story with only the women seeing the young man at the tomb. No apostle and no resurrected Jesus appearance. The women leave and tell no one. This would be consistent with the author writing a work of didactic fiction since a climax including dramatic appearance by a rising God in front of large crowds would invite skepticism from readers who had heard no such reports. This is the conclusion of such liberal Christian authors as Bishop Spong.

The later gospel authors, further removed from the actual events, would be free to embellish their endings with more spectacular scenes.

Highly speculative, but is that not what you are doing do discredit the resurrection. All I am saying is "if" you are going to make up a story about whatever, you don't start off by using less creditable wittinesses. You start off with the best impact you can. As far as the women telling no one at the end of Mark's account, well you can turn that any way you what to fit your ideal of how said events happened or did not. like,, The women ran away afraid and told no one because they where afraid. True at the time they were afraid, and yes I can see them running and not stopping to tell anyone. They the initial fear gave way to uncertainty and questions and this is where they inquire to the disciples as to the where abouts of their master. So yes we can all put our own spin on any topic but. the bible backs itself up with this verse
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

 

[freeway]

Instead of rewriting this in my own words, I thought it best just to leave it as is.. link at the end.

The four gospel accounts were written to four separate audiences. Further, each gospel narrative answers a different question about Jesus Christ. Because the four gospels were written to different aud­iences and have differing purposes, we expect each of them to differ in detail, customs, and order. The fact that the gospel accounts differ slightly is not a sign of contradiction. If anything, the differences augment our understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus and, taken together as a whole, provide a remarkably clear portrait of Christ.

The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews. It answers the question “What did Jesus say?†because it tends to present a portrait of Jesus as the promised Messiah-King of Israel. Being a former government official (i.e., a tax collector), Matthew was particularly interested in what King Jesus had to say, which is why if you want to find the fullest account of the sayings of Jesus, such as the Sermon of the Mount, you will look to Matthew’s gospel. Also, because it was written primarily for the Jews at the time it was written, Matthew’s gospel typically reflects the Jewish reluctance to use the name of God in discourse. That’s why you read “the kingdom of heaven†in the accounts of the sayings of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel, instead of “the kingdom of God†in the parallel passages of the other writers. Matthew organized his book not in chronological order, but by themes.

The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark was written for the Romans. It answers the question “What did Jesus do?†Because it was written for the Romans, it concentrates on the power of Jesus. Romans understood power. That would not have understood or cared about Jewish genealogies, so Mark avoids them. And because his audience did not understand Jewish customs, Mark goes out of his way to augment his text with comments about various Jewish customs in order to educate his Roman readers who might be unacquainted with the Roman eastern frontier. Further, the Gospel of Mark is a very compact book. It would fit easily on one scroll and would be very inexpensive to copy. It would have made an excellent “popular†work that could easily have been distributed to the Greek-speaking Romans who occupied Palestine in the first century A.D.

The Gospel of Luke
The Gospel of Luke was written for the gentiles, the Greeks of Luke’s day. It answers the question “Who followed Jesus?†The Gospel of Luke and its companion work, the Book of Acts, were the result of a careful and personal “first hand†investigation of the events by Luke, the Beloved Physician. In it you will find marvelous details and the results of what clearly were personal inter­views undertaken by Luke in the course of his research. For example, Luke alone records Mary’s feel­ings about the annunciation by Gabriel of the conception of Jesus, doubtlessly receiving this information from the personal memoirs of Mary, which he would have obtained by oral interview.

The Gospel of John
The Gospel of John was written for the believers. It answers the question “Who Is Jesus?†That’s why John’s gospel starts with the words “In the beginningâ€â€”just like Genesis 1:1. And lest the reader be confused about the real meaning of the term “the word†in John 1:1, we must remember that John was a not a student of Greek philo­sophy. He could have cared less about Philo’s Greek concept of “logos.†He would only have cared about the Hebrew or Aramaic concepts of “HaDavarâ€â€”“the word†—which in Hebrew thinking was God. Because the Gospel of John deals with the question of who Jesus was, it is here that you must go to find statements such as “I am the bread of life†and “Before Abraham was, I am†and âœI am the resurrection and the life.â€
http://davidsonpress.com/harmony.htm

 

[logical bob]

This thread has given me a new take on the way in which Christians read the gospels, so thanks to everyone who replied. I have two concluding thoughts.

Firstly, I realise that each gospel has a different agenda and target audience, but the inconsistencies I mentioned in the OP surely involve simple factual questions that aren't affected by these considerations. Matthew writes for a Jewish audience and says that two women spoke with one angel. It's hard to see why it conveys more to Romans if there are three women and more to Gentiles if there are two angels.

Secondly, many of you referred to these discrepencies as inconsequential. Yet at other places on these boards the same people base their beliefs on very exacting interpretations of individual verses. It was suggested in this thread that it's significant that one single word from John 18 reappears in John 21. I hope you're clear on when you can be sure that the Bible says exactly what it should say and when it's wrong but the errors are of no consequence.

Thanks again for your answers.

 

[mondar]

The Bible is not infallible, for even if the Bible was God inspired, once the infallible has the fallible pen the Bible then game over.

If I can rephrase this... you are saying that it is impossible for an all powerful God to work his will through men?

 

[Free]

This thread has given me a new take on the way in which Christians read the gospels, so thanks to everyone who replied. I have two concluding thoughts.

Firstly, I realise that each gospel has a different agenda and target audience, but the inconsistencies I mentioned in the OP surely involve simple factual questions that aren't affected by these considerations. Matthew writes for a Jewish audience and says that two women spoke with one angel. It's hard to see why it conveys more to Romans if there are three women and more to Gentiles if there are two angels.

Secondly, many of you referred to these discrepencies as inconsequential. Yet at other places on these boards the same people base their beliefs on very exacting interpretations of individual verses. It was suggested in this thread that it's significant that one single word from John 18 reappears in John 21. I hope you're clear on when you can be sure that the Bible says exactly what it should say and when it's wrong but the errors are of no consequence.

Thanks again for your answers.

This is the argument that I refer to as the argument the Christian can never win: if the accounts were exact, the charge would be that they copied from each other; but the accounts are slightly different, so the charge is brought that they are errors, that the gospel accounts aren't true, etc. Regardless of the way the accounts are written, there will always be excuses to write them off.

And yet, for all that is said, the consistencies are ignored:

Jesus died, was buried, and his tomb was found empty with the stone rolled away.

That there appear to be discrepancies--and again, I would argue that they are precisely what one should expect from different eye witness accounts--is of little consequence to the larger picture, the main point of the accounts. In fact, when you really look at the accounts, there are more similarities than seeming discrepancies.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

The Bible is not infallible, for even if the Bible was God inspired, once the infallible has the fallible pen the Bible then game over.

If I can rephrase this... you are saying that it is impossible for an all powerful God to work his will through men?

Sorry for the confusion. I am not saying it is impossible. What I am saying is, if it is through the fallible that God's desires are penned, then we will get a product just as fallible as man.

 

[logical bob]

This is the argument that I refer to as the argument the Christian can never win: if the accounts were exact, the charge would be that they copied from each other; but the accounts are slightly different, so the charge is brought that they are errors, that the gospel accounts aren't true, etc. Regardless of the way the accounts are written, there will always be excuses to write them off.

I don't think that's entirely fair. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars (as I'm sure you know) accept that there is copying between the gospels, with Matthew and Luke using Mark and another document as sources. I'm not sure what kind of reception that theory gets among Christians. It doesn't by itself mean that the accounts aren't reliable, but it does make it difficult to see Matthew and Luke as eye witness accounts independent of Mark. It's understandable that they wanted to add the resurrection appearances that Mark lacks. Why they didn't use the details of Mark's account of the empty tomb is puzzling.

And yet, for all that is said, the consistencies are ignored:

Jesus died, was buried, and his tomb was found empty with the stone rolled away.

I don't discount the consistencies. What all four accounts do witness is that there was a shared belief in the empty tomb amongst a variety of early Christian groups. There's no doubt that this is significant.

 

[Mysteryman]

This is the argument that I refer to as the argument the Christian can never win: if the accounts were exact, the charge would be that they copied from each other; but the accounts are slightly different, so the charge is brought that they are errors, that the gospel accounts aren't true, etc. Regardless of the way the accounts are written, there will always be excuses to write them off.

I don't think that's entirely fair. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars (as I'm sure you know) accept that there is copying between the gospels, with Matthew and Luke using Mark and another document as sources. I'm not sure what kind of reception that theory gets among Christians. It doesn't by itself mean that the accounts aren't reliable, but it does make it difficult to see Matthew and Luke as eye witness accounts independent of Mark. It's understandable that they wanted to add the resurrection appearances that Mark lacks. Why they didn't use the details of Mark's account of the empty tomb is puzzling.

And yet, for all that is said, the consistencies are ignored:

Jesus died, was buried, and his tomb was found empty with the stone rolled away.

I don't discount the consistencies. What all four accounts do witness is that there was a shared belief in the empty tomb amongst a variety of early Christian groups. There's no doubt that this is significant.

Hi Bob

Ever hear the phrase, "through the eyes of the beholder" ?

Ever wonder, and I am sure you of all people have given this some thought. Why is it that so many people read the bible and come away with so many different interpretations , correct ?

Different account that do not seem to line up and different pieces of information that seems not to fit the whole puzzle. I am sure you have noticed this among fellow christians. The reason being, is that each person or group reads the scriptures through the eye of the beholder. In other words, why is a Methodist a Methodist and why is a Catholic a Catholic and why is a LDS an LDS ? Obviously they have something in common, but see things differently. Which is obvious, correct ?

The reason for this differing view, is that someone or group decided to adhere to a certain belief, and that organization has not changed from their stance upon that belief. Which is why there are still Methodists and Catholics and LDS etc. groups still all clinging tho their own paticular understanding.

Now you read the bible , but your eyes are not one of a believer, so you read with you carnal understanding, while Christians read mostly with their spiritual eyes ( understanding ). What I see, and what you see are going to be always different because the eye of the beholder is different.

Why we do not have unity within the Church and all do not believe the exact same way , is because at some point in time, someone (no finger pointing as all are guilty) read the scriptures with their carnal mind, and declared that what they see in the scriptures was attained by their spiritual understanding. Here is where lies the confusion. We confuse reading the Word with our carnal mind , when we should be reading the scriptures with our spiritual eyes (mind).

No disrespect to you, but if you are looking at scripture with only your carnal mind, what else do you expect to see, other than one who reads scripture and only comes away with a carnal understanding ?

Carnal understanding will only result in carnal understanding.

Now if we can only get the church to understand this, then maybe there will be more unity within the one Church we all ascribe too.

Take care Bob

IN Christ - MM

 

[logical bob]

No disrespect to you, but if you are looking at scripture with only your carnal mind, what else do you expect to see, other than one who reads scripture and only comes away with a carnal understanding ?

Carnal understanding will only result in carnal understanding.

I take it then that you'd disagree with the Christians I mentioned back in the OP who told me that reading the Bible should convince me of the truth of Christianity. You seem to be saying that one would need to be a Christian in order to read the Bible properly.

I'm curious about what counts as carnal understanding. Going back to my previous post, if scholars find evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with a copy of Mark open in front of them then what is the status of that conclusion? Is it untrue, and if the scholar had a spriritual understanding would she see it to be untrue? Or might it be correct but leave out a vital extra dimension only available to the believer?

I hope these questions make sense. I'm finding this a very interesting way of understanding more about the way Christians think about these questions.

 

[Mysteryman]

No disrespect to you, but if you are looking at scripture with only your carnal mind, what else do you expect to see, other than one who reads scripture and only comes away with a carnal understanding ?

Carnal understanding will only result in carnal understanding.

I take it then that you'd disagree with the Christians I mentioned back in the OP who told me that reading the Bible should convince me of the truth of Christianity. You seem to be saying that one would need to be a Christian in order to read the Bible properly.

I'm curious about what counts as carnal understanding. Going back to my previous post, if scholars find evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with a copy of Mark open in front of them then what is the status of that conclusion? Is it untrue, and if the scholar had a spriritual understanding would she see it to be untrue? Or might it be correct but leave out a vital extra dimension only available to the believer?

I hope these questions make sense. I'm finding this a very interesting way of understanding more about the way Christians think about these questions.

Hi Bob

The apostle Paul has made it clear, and I understand his statement completely. That one needs to have eyes to see and hears to hear. Meaning, that one's spiritual eyes are "revealings" . One can not on their own , even if they have spiritual eyes, read the scriptures without there first being a revealing to their understanding. This is to say, that one still can not figure it out by one's self. It does not matter if one has spiritual eyes or one does not. Many christians walk around with their spiritual eyes closed. While they walk around with their physical eyes wide open to any interpretation of the scriptures.

It is untrue, that Matthew and Luke wrote with a copy of Mark in front of them. We do know that the originals are not around anymore. And if anyone tells you or myself differently, they are not telling you the truth. Throughout time, what we do have available to us, are nothing more than copies of copies, of copies , of copies. And because of that, we have "lost" many thing that were in the originals, which are not now within these copies. And on top of that, our translations, as well as the copies from which they came. Have also many additions within them.

God never inteneded for His Word to be preserved wholely with ink and paper. We read in II Corinth. 3:3 - "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart"

God wrote His Word in our hearts.

Our translations can have up too as much as 90 % of the Word of God within them. Some translations have much less, and more additions or poor translation error's in them, which greatly reduces it accuracy. An NIV would be a good example of this. The NIV IMHO is the worst of the worst.

However, God's Word is preserved by His Spirit in our hearts.

When the originals were written, they were penned by the author's own hand and the Spirit of God was upon each and every one of those whom wrote seperate writtings, which we call books within our book, we call our Bible. God did preserve just enough in written form, but not enough that it can be reasoned out with one's carnal mind. God did this for a reason. That reason is this, God uses witnesses to bring forth His Word. These witnesses are those who are called Christians. They have witnessed within their hearts those things which are true, and which can be documented with the written Word. However, because God didn't fully preserve His Word in written form, one still needs someone else who is not a Christian to help them understand it. Many times those who are not Christians , will still only grasps parts and pieces that they will understand. Certian things within the written Word will make some sense, but overall, the overall picture will not make sense to the average non-christian. < I believe you fall into this category, not of your own choice, but by the will of God this is true.

Love IN Christ - MM