What is the point of attributing these writings to someone who is not the author? Only two of the apostles wrote a gospel account, (Matthew and John) with Mark being a close associate of the apostle Peter who was an eyewitness, whilst Luke was closer to Paul. Neither Paul or Luke were eyewitnesses concerning Jesus' ministry, both apparently being converted after Pentecost 33 C.E, but their writings in no way contradict anything written in the other gospels. Paul was personally instructed by Jesus (though not in the flesh) he communicated with Paul directly as he was not educated by the other apostles.
- You must accept that none of the Gospel authors were eye witnesses. No scholar ever accepts them to be eye witnesses. The Gospels are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because, well, what else could you call them? They are also named Gospels because, well again, what else could you call them? I dont know. No one knows.
The 12 apostles were eye witnesses of all that happened from their calling to become Jesus' disciples until his death.
The 12 are mentioned by name in all the Gospels as well as Acts.
Bible translator Jerome of the fourth century and Origen of the third century C.E. say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. It was directed primarily to Jews. But there were many Hellenized Jews among the Dispersion; so it may be that it was Matthew himself who later translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel mainly with Gentile readers in view, as is indicated by his explanations of Jewish customs and teachings, by his translations of certain expressions that would not be understood by Roman readers, and by other explanations. Both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels were intended for wide circulation, and of necessity, many copies would be made and distributed.
Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully.
An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of the material contained in it is not found in the other three Gospels.
Again it must be asked if the story is a complete departure from the Gospel accounts as a whole or whether there is compatibility among all of them? Do you think that the disciples were a bunch of uneducated yobbos? (Aussie expression meaning brainless morons) I find compatibility in all of them. Minor differences in recollection, considering that they were written between 41 and 98 C.E. do not alter the story because it is based on eye witness testimony recalled individually by God's spirit upon these men. If you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we have nothing to discuss. It is therefore not men relying on their failing memory, but God's spirit vividly recalling details in what he wanted recorded in his word.
- These books are written in Greek, by highly qualified, educated authors. Of course, Mark is the first and John is the last, but we have a theory that the two other synoptic gospel writers used Mark as their primary source and other superficial sources Q & L. Thus there is no way to 100% believe they have any divine inspiration or absolute validity.
Mark 14:17-42 is his account of the Passover night and Jesus ate the Passover meal with the 12. John's account is in ch 13. I find no discrepancy.
- In Mark it says that Jesus died after the Passover meal. John says that Jesus died before the passover meal or on the day of preparation. Is it before or after?
Jesus ate the Passover meal with his apostles....even washing the feet of his betrayer. Where does it say he died before the Passover meal?
Mark says that Jesus died about the ninth hour which is around 3pm. And John confirms that it was also in the afternoon, being about the sixth hour when Pilate handed him over to be executed.
- What time did Jesus die. 9 AM as said by Mark or later in the afternoon as said by John? No point pointing out all differences.
Where did you get 9am from?
These are some of the problems. There are many discrepancies. But if you take each Gospel as a whole, these differences do not change the overall theology.
I didn't find any discrepancies. The Gospels do not contradict each other. Each adds details the others may have left out. No other event in the Bible has four accounts attesting to its authenticity, except the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. That is good enough for me.
Raymond Brown talks heavily on the evolving theology from Matthew to John. Do you agree that the theology evolved from Mark to John?
Can theology "evolve"? Can truth "evolve" without losing its truthfulness?
Yes, one can argue that they could be complementing eachother. So, does that mean Mark knew that John would exalt Jesus to the status of Divinity a generation later when he wrote his Gospel and left it to John to complete it?
Since John did no such thing I cannot see how this requires an answer. All of the apostles knew who Jesus was..."the son of God".
No one elevated him to the status of Almighty God but an apostate church over 300 years after Jesus died.
Jesus never once claimed to be Almighty God but the apostles all knew he was the divine son of the Almighty, a god (mighty one) in his own right, deserving of their respect and honor.