Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe were written 50-80 years after the initial events, to diffferent audiences and focusing on different aspects of the events. The authors of Luke and Matthew had the assistance of the book of Mark being written before theirs, but 50 years is a long time to wait before recording events.
'Nuff said.
I'll put some time into this if there's a lively debate. If everyone else thinks they are consistent I'll let the thread die gracefully.
However take a look at Thread 83953. That's where I got the idea.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerActually, we have some idea of when the Gospels began being CIRCULATED, but the record of the events may have been WRITTEN shortly after the events took place. There is some logic to the idea that there was no need to immediately circulate a record of the events since those events were perhaps widely known at the time.
The were written 50-80 years after the initial events, to diffferent audiences and focusing on different aspects of the events. The authors of Luke and Matthew had the assistance of the book of Mark being written before theirs, but 50 years is a long time to wait before recording events.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThat does not make sense. If there was an earlier record, why invent one that disagreed with the others; at some point, there must have been disagreement about what happened, and that has translated into the gospels as we now know them.
Actually, we have some idea of when the Gospels began being CIRCULATED, but the record of the events may have been WRITTEN shortly after the events took place. There is some logic to the idea that there was no need to immediately circulate a record of the events since those events were perhaps widely known at the time.
Further, to change an existing record is positively fraudulant, however I will accept that may have happened, especially regarding the later construction of the books of the bible in 300-400ad
I don't know how much you know about the human brain and the way we construct reality, but even hours after events take place there are vastly differing accounts from eyewitnesses of the same event. There is substantial evidence for this wonderful ability of ours to make stuff up.
Originally posted by jaywillWe've went through several many times.
I am looking for major inconsistency in the Gospels.
Does anyone have any ? THousandYoung, didn't you start the assertion that they were not consistent ?
Your examples, please ?
For example, was the Last Supper the Passover meal? (the Synoptics say yes; John says no).
How many people were at Jesus' tomb?
How did the people crucified with Jesus act toward him?
Etc, etc, etc, etc.
====================================
I don't know how much you know about the human brain and the way we construct reality, but even hours after events take place there are vastly differing accounts from eyewitnesses of the same event. There is substantial evidence for this wonderful ability of ours to make stuff up.
========================================
Have you taken into account that the writing of the New Testament reveals that the apostles seemed to have been very vigilant that stuff was NOT being made up and added to the Gospel?
In Acts we see the apostles and elders quite concerned that stuff was not being fraudulently added to the original message.
In Paul's epistles and in Peter's they both express caution that things were not being added to the message.
All the record that we have in the New Testament is that the writers were keeping a wary and watchful eye over what was circulating.
So you have the Council in Jerusalem about circumsizing the Gentiles. You have the correction of mistakes preached by Apollos. You even have a younger man Paul rebuking senior man Peter publically not to change the message of Jesus.
You have Paul's many warnings to Timothy to charge the co-workers not to teach differently.
You have Peter's warnings about apostasy similar to that seen in the Old Testament. You see the Apostle John warning about false teachers denying that Jesus came in the flesh. You have Paul warning the Ephsesian elders that "wolves" would come in and that they should be wary of men leading the disciples off after their own brand of teaching.
Everywhere we see the writers taking caution that apostasy is not setting in and that the purity of the teaching is being preserved.
These are our oldest records of what the gospel was. And they were written while many of them were contemporaries of one another.
Plus the fact that after they died you did not have only ONE copy of a document being transmitted. You have multiple copies of documents being transmitted. A that means for less probability of serious perversion. Or it makes it much easier for textural critics to spot serious perversions.