The gospel accounts...

[Daisy]

What particularly do you appreciate about the gospel accounts?

I appreciate that in all 4 accounts, Jesus's true character comes through with a decided ring of truth...it would be difficult for 4 different individuals to concoct such an out of the ordinary character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout 4 distinct narratives...furthermore, if Jesus did not really exist, it would be nearly impossible for 4 different writers to describe the same person and consistently paint the same picture of him...

Historian Michael Grant presents a thought provoking question...“How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?”

The reasonable answer...such a man really existed and he acted in exactly the way the Bible says...

 

[vesper]

What particularly do you appreciate about the gospel accounts?

I appreciate that in all 4 accounts, Jesus's true character comes through with a decided ring of truth...it would be difficult for 4 different individuals to concoct such an out of the ordinary character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout 4 distinct narratives...furthermore, if Jesus did not really exist, it would be nearly impossible for 4 different writers to describe the same person and consistently paint the same picture of him...

Historian Michael Grant presents a thought provoking question...“How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?”

The reasonable answer...such a man really existed and he acted in exactly the way the Bible says...

I see the gospel of Matthew as the gospel to the Jews following in Yeshua's orders to the Jew first.

His gospel is full of genealogy which was ever important among the Jewish sect. It is also full of OT scripture prophesying of Yeshua.

Mark omits the genealogy and focuses on the works of Yeshua throughout.

Luke is much about the believing gentiles. And to this day is probably the favorite gospel among them.

John is my favorite as he is a summary of the three before him. John is the book of LOVE.

 

[Daisy]

I see the gospel of Matthew as the gospel to the Jews following in Yeshua's orders to the Jew first.

His gospel is full of genealogy which was ever important among the Jewish sect. It is also full of OT scripture prophesying of Yeshua.

Mark omits the genealogy and focuses on the works of Yeshua throughout.

Luke is much about the believing gentiles. And to this day is probably the favorite gospel among them.

John is my favorite as he is a summary of the three before him. John is the book of LOVE.

I think that's pretty, amazing, too...that God allows them to write the gospels from different perspectives...

Matthew's account seems to focus on Joseph...his initial reaction to Mary, his dream of the angel explaining the situation and his acceptance of that explanation...

While Luke's account focuses more on Mary...her visit by the angel, Gabriel...her visit with her relative, Elizabeth...

The 2 gospel accounts also differ on the genealogy of Jesus...Matthew traces it through the line of Joseph and shows that as Joseph's adopted son, was the legal heir of to David's kingship...

Where Luke evidently traces Mary's lineage and shows that Jesus was the natural heir to David's throne...

The truth about Jesus' lineage was so well-known that even the Sadducees and the Pharisees could not deny who Jesus was, according to prophecy...

Their genealogical records still remains a strong part of the foundation our faith today, as well as a testimony to the suredness of God's promises...

 

[gfm7175]

I appreciate that the four gospels give four different perspectives on who Jesus Christ is... Matthew portrays him as the "Messiah", Mark portrays him as a "servant", Luke portrays him as a "perfect man", and John portrays him as the "Son of God".

 

[Daisy]

I appreciate that the four gospels give four different perspectives on who Jesus Christ is... Matthew portrays him as the "Messiah", Mark portrays him as a "servant", Luke portrays him as a "perfect man", and John portrays him as the "Son of God".

True, gfm...he's all those things and so much more...

 

[Daisy]

I also appreciate Mark's attention to detail...did you realize his account includes 2 miracles and an illustration by Jesus that the other 3 do not? The miracle of the deaf man with a speech impediment being healed...Mark 7:32-37 and the miracle of the blind man being healed at Mark 8:22-26...the illustration is likening the kingdom of God to a man casting his seed on the ground at Mark 4:26-29...

 

[nota bene]

I always return to Matthew. A minor reason is that I've studied John Milton, and in order to "get" his divorce tracts and the famed sonnet on his blindness, you have to be familiar with Matthew.

Aside: A consequence of a more secularized society is that so many literature majors now are unfamiliar with what used to be commonplace Biblical allusions. Must cost students quite a bit of research time playing catch-up.

 

[vesper]

I also appreciate Mark's attention to detail...did you realize his account includes 2 miracles and an illustration by Jesus that the other 3 do not? The miracle of the deaf man with a speech impediment being healed...Mark 7:32-37 and the miracle of the blind man being healed at Mark 8:22-26...the illustration is likening the kingdom of God to a man casting his seed on the ground at Mark 4:26-29...

I didn't know that! Thanks Elvira!

 

[Chagos]

~.......................the illustration is likening the kingdom of God to a man casting his seed on the ground at Mark 4:26-29...

Looking at that passage I see that the chosen wording was somewhat more circumspect than yours. Probably so as not to be confused with the action described in Genesis 38:9, at least in older translations.

Just to point out that one word (here "his") can change meanings completely.

 

[Daisy]

Something else I also appreciate about the gospels...some say the discrepancy about the color of Jesus' garment being scarlet or purple is a reason to doubt their authenticity...

Matthew calls it scarlet in Matthew 27:28 but Mark and John refer to his robe as being purple...Mark 15:17; John 19:2...

Instead of being a discrepancy in the color of the garment, such a variation in the color of the garment merely gives evidence of the individuality of the gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion with their writings...

Matthew emphasized the reddish hue, while Mark and John emphasized it's purple hue...purple can be referred to any color having components of both red and blue...of course background and light reflection could have given it different casts, just as a body of water can vary in color at different times, depending on the sky color and reflection of light at any given time...

So considering such factors, the gospel writers were not in conflict or collusion at all...

 

[Daisy]

"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin will be circumcised." Lev. 12:3

"After eight days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived." Luke 2:21

Just another small detail that strengthens my faith and assures me that the Bible is truly the Word of God...did you know that there is a scientific reason for circumcising a baby boy on the 8th day?

The amazing thing is that we had no idea why it was best to circumcise on the 8th day up until about the year 1939...

Our bodies have 2 blood-clotting factors...the blood clotting factor, vitamin K, is not formed in the body until the 5th-7th day...the 2nd factor necessary for clotting blood is prothrombin...it develops to about 30% of normal by the 3rd day and peaks at about 110% by the 8th day before finally leveling off to 100%...

How amazing is that?! We had no idea but God knew and He gave that command to Moses all those many years ago! That only reinforces my confidence in the Bible even more...how about you?

 

[gfm7175]

I personally like John the most, followed by Matthew, then Luke, then Mark... However, I've always felt that Mark was the best gospel for introducing somebody to God's Word, because it reads easier and faster than the other gospels. Luke is neat in how it focuses on Jesus' birth and his humanity. Matthew is neat for the Sermon on the Mount, and John just has something about it which sets it apart from the other three gospels, as well as having very powerful opening and closing verses...

 

[vesper]

I think that's pretty, amazing, too...that God allows them to write the gospels from different perspectives...

Matthew's account seems to focus on Joseph...his initial reaction to Mary, his dream of the angel explaining the situation and his acceptance of that explanation...

While Luke's account focuses more on Mary...her visit by the angel, Gabriel...her visit with her relative, Elizabeth...

The 2 gospel accounts also differ on the genealogy of Jesus...Matthew traces it through the line of Joseph and shows that as Joseph's adopted son, was the legal heir of to David's kingship...

Where Luke evidently traces Mary's lineage and shows that Jesus was the natural heir to David's throne...

The truth about Jesus' lineage was so well-known that even the Sadducees and the Pharisees could not deny who Jesus was, according to prophecy...

Their genealogical records still remains a strong part of the foundation our faith today, as well as a testimony to the suredness of God's promises...

Yes the genealogy is very important. It reveals Yeshua to be King and Priest. Its targeted audience is to the Jew. It is a treasure trove of Old Testament prophecies too. So it is fitting that it be the first in order, as that was a command of Yeshua that the Gospel first be offered to the Jew. In Acts you see that carried out over and over again in the travels of the Apostles.

I think Mark's Gospel targeted the Romans. Luke was the only Gentile writer. But John's focus was on the deity of Yeshua.

 

[ludin]

I personally like John the most, followed by Matthew, then Luke, then Mark... However, I've always felt that Mark was the best gospel for introducing somebody to God's Word, because it reads easier and faster than the other gospels. Luke is neat in how it focuses on Jesus' birth and his humanity. Matthew is neat for the Sermon on the Mount, and John just has something about it which sets it apart from the other three gospels, as well as having very powerful opening and closing verses...

Luke was a doctor/historian in his own right. So he would be a bit more deeper in the details. he also lays out the linage of Jesus through is mothers side.
probably because Matthew had already laid out his linage through his Step-Dad's side. Joseph was not Jesus actual father but his Step-Father adopted but had full rights as his own son.

However the linage of Mary is important as she was from the line and linage of David. She was also a only child.
By jewish law being an only child her Fathers birth right would pass to her to her son.

which means that Christ had a claim to the throne of David.

even though the gospels were written by 4 different people and persepctives they are all consistent in who Christ is and was and will be.
that he is God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

 

[RAMOSS]

Luke was a doctor/historian in his own right. So he would be a bit more deeper in the details. he also lays out the linage of Jesus through is mothers side.
probably because Matthew had already laid out his linage through his Step-Dad's side. Joseph was not Jesus actual father but his Step-Father adopted but had full rights as his own son.

However the linage of Mary is important as she was from the line and linage of David. She was also a only child.
By jewish law being an only child her Fathers birth right would pass to her to her son.

which means that Christ had a claim to the throne of David.

even though the gospels were written by 4 different people and persepctives they are all consistent in who Christ is and was and will be.
that he is God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The linage of the house always goes through the biological father in Jewish law, and since Joseph is NOT his father, that interrupts that claim. It goes from father to son, and goes through the lineage of the biological father.

 

[ludin]

The linage of the house always goes through the biological father in Jewish law, and since Joseph is NOT his father, that interrupts that claim. It goes from father to son, and goes through the lineage of the biological father.

I posted this too you before. It can also pass through the mother if she is the only child.
And there are no other sons. He son can inherit the right as well.

How can Jesus be the Son of David? | Word of Messiah Ministries

Numbers 27:1-7 confirms this.

 

[UtahBill]

A good book to improve your understanding of the 4 gospels is "Horizontal Harmony of the Four Gospels" which lays the 4 in parallel columns. It uses the KJ version, compiled by Thomas M. Mumford.

Wish it was also a "red letter" book, makes it easier to keep track of who is speaking. When discussing the NT with others, I have noticed over the years that lots of Christians tend to quote Paul too much and/or Christ too little. Paul may be responsible for more of the NT than Christ, but it is still NOT Paul's church.

 

[Visbek]

What particularly do you appreciate about the gospel accounts?

I appreciate that in all 4 accounts, Jesus's true character comes through with a decided ring of truth...it would be difficult for 4 different individuals to concoct such an out of the ordinary character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout 4 distinct narratives...

Uh... Not so much.

Matthew and Luke drew explicitly from Mark, and many scholars believe there was another now-lost document ("Q" or "Source") involved. All three may have drawn from Q, although there is considerable debate about that.

John was written much later, coming from a separate tradition, though the anonymous author probably was aware of at least Mark. As a result, John is quite distinct from the Synoptic Gospels.

E.g. Jesus never describes himself as divine in the Synoptic Gospels; that only happens in John. There are many omissions of material in John -- the temptation, the sermon on the mount, lord's prayer. It includes material not found in the others -- multiple visits to Jerusalem, Lazarus, farewell discourse....

One reason these differences can be hard to pick up on are because we usually read these documents in sequence -- 1, 2, 3, 4. The differences become more obvious when you read them in parallel or "horizontally" -- e.g. comparing all four, noticing what is in one that is not in another, noticing the similarities (which are often word-for-word, hence the conclusions about shared sourcing), seeing how sequences are different, and so on.

Historian Michael Grant presents a thought provoking question...“How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?”

Aside from the above:

1) We live in a world in which religious authorities have literally spent centuries trying to make Jesus into a figure that is not only consistent across those accounts, but with centuries of varied theological interpretations and traditions.

2) People see what they want to see.

The reasonable answer...such a man really existed and he acted in exactly the way the Bible says...

There is little reason to doubt that the historical figure of Jesus existed.

Did he do what the biographical gospels say he did? Not quite. He almost certainly was an itinerant preacher; he almost certainly criticized the Temple and Romans in a way that did not get him in trouble, until he went to Jerusalem; he almost certainly caused major problems during Passover; he was crucified.

Other things are... debatable. In particular, he couldn't possibly have done exactly what the gospels describe, because they frequently conflict with one another. (Again, this is more apparent with a horizontal reading, rather than the usual sequential reading.) Similarly, the claims about things like Pilate's behavior or Jesus' purported lineage don't add up. As Bart Ehrman points out, the only way to reconcile this is to fabricate a fifth gospel, by cherry-picking the parts you like so it makes sense to you.

Even based on the documents themselves, that kind of fundamentalist/literalist claim just doesn't work well. It's a conclusion in search of evidence, not the other way round.

 

[RAMOSS]

I posted this too you before. It can also pass through the mother if she is the only child.
And there are no other sons. He son can inherit the right as well.

How can Jesus be the Son of David? | Word of Messiah Ministries

Numbers 27:1-7 confirms this.

Well, there is a difference between the material possessions of the deceased, and the blood line. Numbers 27:1-11 basically give the order of what should happen to the material wealth of someone who should die without sons. It is a mistake to assume it means blood line and tribal affiliation. If you want to see how that works, look up the modern laws about bloodline and adoption, particularly when it comes to the tribes of the Cohen. When a child is adopted, it follows the bloodline of the biological father, not the adopted father. Same principle.

 

[Visbek]

I posted this too you before. It can also pass through the mother if she is the only child.
And there are no other sons. He son can inherit the right as well.

How can Jesus be the Son of David? | Word of Messiah Ministries

Numbers 27:1-7 confirms this.

Sorry, but that page is complete and utter nonsense.

The genealogy in Luke 3 is of Joseph, not Mary. NIV, emphasis added:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos...

Matthew 1 is also a genealogy of Joseph, not Mary. NIV, emphasis added:

This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers....

Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

There is no mention of Mary (Miriam) in either genealogy. It is screamingly obvious that they are tracing it to Joseph, not her.

 

[ludin]

Sorry, but that page is complete and utter nonsense.

The genealogy in Luke 3 is of Joseph, not Mary. NIV, emphasis added:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos...

Matthew 1 is also a genealogy of Joseph, not Mary. NIV, emphasis added:

This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers....

Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

There is no mention of Mary (Miriam) in either genealogy. It is screamingly obvious that they are tracing it to Joseph, not her.

YOu might want to do a bit more research Luke's genology is very much through Mary.

https://bible.org/question/why-do-matthew-and-lukes-genealogies-contradict-one-another

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

 

[Visbek]

YOu might want to do a bit more research Luke's genology is very much through Mary.

The text itself explicitly states in both Matthew and Luke that it is talking about Joseph's lineage.

The links you provided are not "research," they are apologetics, and weak ones at that. Both admit that Matthew's genealogy is to Joseph, and rely on the easily rejectable claim that Luke provided a lineage to Mary. The text itself does not support this, as we can see in a variety of translations:

NIV: Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...
NSRV: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli...
KJV: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi...
ASV: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi...
NASB: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...
NIRV: Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his special work for God and others. It was thought that he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli....

Another problem is that Matthew counts 14 generations between David and Jesus; Luke counts 27. It seems highly unlikely that Nathan's offspring all reproduced at twice the speed of Solomon's.

The lineage also overlaps with Shealtiel and Zerubbabel... and this produces another discrepancy. Matthew shows 9 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, Luke shows 18 generations. Ooops.

We should note, this is not a problem for most Christians, or really anything in serious Christian theology. Both the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted to change Jesus from an ignoble backwater preacher into an exalted prophet, so they gave him royal lineages. It is only those who proclaim that the text must be 100% correct, and in agreement on all points, who need to tie themselves into a pretzel over this. I'll pass, kthx.

 

[Daisy]

The text itself explicitly states in both Matthew and Luke that it is talking about Joseph's lineage.

The links you provided are not "research," they are apologetics, and weak ones at that. Both admit that Matthew's genealogy is to Joseph, and rely on the easily rejectable claim that Luke provided a lineage to Mary. The text itself does not support this, as we can see in a variety of translations:

NIV: Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...
NSRV: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli...
KJV: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi...
ASV: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi...
NASB: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...
NIRV: Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his special work for God and others. It was thought that he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli....

Another problem is that Matthew counts 14 generations between David and Jesus; Luke counts 27. It seems highly unlikely that Nathan's offspring all reproduced at twice the speed of Solomon's.

The lineage also overlaps with Shealtiel and Zerubbabel... and this produces another discrepancy. Matthew shows 9 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, Luke shows 18 generations. Ooops.

We should note, this is not a problem for most Christians, or really anything in serious Christian theology. Both the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted to change Jesus from an ignoble backwater preacher into an exalted prophet, so they gave him royal lineages. It is only those who proclaim that the text must be 100% correct, and in agreement on all points, who need to tie themselves into a pretzel over this. I'll pass, kthx.

Too late...:roll:

 

[RAMOSS]

YOu might want to do a bit more research Luke's genology is very much through Mary.

https://bible.org/question/why-do-matthew-and-lukes-genealogies-contradict-one-another

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

The two points that neither of those links address are 1) What the actual words in the two gospels actually are and 2) reconcile it's claims with the Jewish law about the lineage and bloodlines.

 

[ludin]

The text itself explicitly states in both Matthew and Luke that it is talking about Joseph's lineage.

The links you provided are not "research," they are apologetics, and weak ones at that. Both admit that Matthew's genealogy is to Joseph, and rely on the easily rejectable claim that Luke provided a lineage to Mary. The text itself does not support this, as we can see in a variety of translations:

NIV: Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...
NSRV: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli...
KJV: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi...
ASV: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi...
NASB: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...
NIRV: Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his special work for God and others. It was thought that he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli....

Another problem is that Matthew counts 14 generations between David and Jesus; Luke counts 27. It seems highly unlikely that Nathan's offspring all reproduced at twice the speed of Solomon's.

The lineage also overlaps with Shealtiel and Zerubbabel... and this produces another discrepancy. Matthew shows 9 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, Luke shows 18 generations. Ooops.

We should note, this is not a problem for most Christians, or really anything in serious Christian theology. Both the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted to change Jesus from an ignoble backwater preacher into an exalted prophet, so they gave him royal lineages. It is only those who proclaim that the text must be 100% correct, and in agreement on all points, who need to tie themselves into a pretzel over this. I'll pass, kthx.

I posted two more links that say your wrong.
if you want to continue PLease go and do some research. you will find out that you are not correct.

Luke traces Christs linage through Mary for a reason.

matthew traces his linage through Joseph.

I have posted at least 3 links from theological web sites that confirm this.
you continue to ignore it so by all means you can do so.

it just proves that you are not interested in actual discussions.

you do know what apologetic are correct? i guess not.
they are a theological line of study.

https://bible.org/question/mary’s-lineage-one-gospels

yet another one.

Eli was Mary's father Jacob was Joseph's.
Mary was a single daughter. Eli had no son's.