Why Four Versions

though they all have their own take on what happened and describe it in their words, it is all inspired writing and in the end, they are all basically in agreement. It is like asking a group of people that witnessed an accident. they will have have their own insight on what they saw from their angle, and include their perspective, life experiences, etc.. but ultimately they will all report that an accident happened. the fact that an accident happened with all those witnesses giving an account make it an undeniable.
 
If God truly inspired an author to write a Gospel, then why are there FOUR differing versions?
:)

Because there are four different authors ... and the fourth, St Luke, openly states his testimony is drawn from a variety of sources.

God 'inspires' the author by revealed insight ... what the author chooses to write about, and how he chooses to write about it, is his own. God does not tell him what to write, He just makes sure he is correct on matters pertaining to the kerygma (the revealed truths) contained within Scripture.

Thus the kerygma of all four is the same, its just the accidental details that differ.

Thomas
 
There were only four that were cannonized, selected, there were more stories of Jesus that were not included in the bible.

Yes different authors and also different audiences, they were writing for different groups of people. As Thomas says Luke's indicates he was writing from previous material, but each by the time of writing probably had read some of what Paul had written and was circulating, and some previous gospels, so they were writing to correct, update and complete the story as they had heard/understood it or wanted it to be understood.
 
The gospel of John is unique, which is why it was selected. The other synoptic gospels are all essentially the same, but they're all well-written and it would be pretty hard to select only one (i.e. Matthew has the sermon on the mountain, and Mark is short and sweet, and Luke has parables and historical details that the others don't).

Four writers; one story.
 
Oh sure have buddy!!! hallelujah!!...

No sorry, I was tellin ya a straight up lie sweetheart! I just looked at your avatar... Because I knew you asked the question, yet already had the answer you wanted... And put the two together.. And gave you some ear candy... My bad.

Had this thing or telling people what they want to hear latley lol
 
Mark seems to be the earliest and the most factual in that it pretty much just relates events and has little doctrine in it.

Matthew and Luke are quite similar and seem to be a blend of Mark and sayings from the Gospel of Thomas.

John, from what I understand, is the latest and shows a clear development of conceptualization about Jesus that the other three don't seem to have- that is, it begins to set up the doctrines that underlay the Christian tradition.

I tend to think they are just different accounts of the same thing, with some different ideas about Jesus' teachings and what happened, written for different audiences. I can understand why some accounts were not cannonized, but I really don't get why Thomas wasn't, except that I suppose most of it is also found in Matthew and Luke, so perhaps the cannonizers felt it was redundant and more useable integrated with the story of Jesus' life, rather than a set of sayings.
 
Hi Path —

John, from what I understand, is the latest and shows a clear development of conceptualization about Jesus that the other three don't seem to have — that is, it begins to set up the doctrines that underlay the Christian tradition.
This is one thesis, an argument of a High (Johannine) Christology that fundamentally differs from a Low (Synoptic) Christology. This argument, to me, falls down on the fact that Paul's Christology (earlier than the Gospels) fully accords with John's (as indeed I can argue all the Synoptics), although not presented so explicitly in the latter, it is there explicitly in Paul, and thus is not innovative at all.

... but I really don't get why Thomas wasn't
The principle argument against Thomas is its fundamentally dualistic vision in which the world, and the body, plays no part in the eschatalogical vision of a general Resurrection. In Thomas the world is lost and one escapes it; in orthodox doctrine the world is a theophany, the Glory of God in creation, which was wounded, but which is healed, and made anew:
"Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

'Creature' in Paul is ktisis, again affirming the unity of the concrete person as a 'new creation' in body as well as soul (and spirit). Thomas emphasises the spiritual and discards the material as redundant, stripping human nature of its totality as a spiritually and materially existing being.

Thomas
 
Alex said:
No sorry, I was tellin ya a straight up lie sweetheart! I just looked at your avatar... Because I knew you asked the question, yet already had the answer you wanted... And put the two together.. And gave you some ear candy... My bad.
Should the avatar be changed, it might confuse future readers. So that future readers do not misunderstand comments about it: user A. Ben Shema has an avatar overlaid with the words "Church of God? or the Temples of Satan?" Like Alex says, he really is just looking at the avatar. :)
 
Should the avatar be changed, it might confuse future readers. So that future readers do not misunderstand comments about it: user A. Ben Shema has an avatar overlaid with the words "Church of God? or the Temples of Satan?" Like Alex says, he really is just looking at the avatar. :)

My avatar is actually the front cover of my book. ;)

:)
 
The discovery of ancient text found in 1945, "Missing Gospels", would suggest that there were other gospels that were rejected. They might have made Jesus "too human". I believe the gospel according to Thomas has Jesus kissing Magdalena. There is the book of "Q" and some believe that the writings of Thomas are used in two of the four gospels. What do we really mean when we say the gopsels (and do we include the missing gospels ?) were inspired by God or are the word of God ? How did that process take place ? Is it possible the scribes created their own insperation ? Could their love and fear of God, personal traditions, times they lived in, personal believes inspire the scribes ?
Cristina
 
Back
Top