Does the author of Luke disagree with Matthew?

[roger1440]

If "nearly everything" were allegories, then how would one determine which to be taken literally?

Does that mean Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection didn't happen? Does it mean there are no heaven, afterlife or the Holy Spirit don't exist?

If the answer was that easy, scholars would be out of a job. The most scholars can say is that there is a "likelihood" this, that or the other thing happened or didn't happen.

I hate to break it to you. It's like telling a child there isn't any Santa Claus. Virgins do not give birth. Dead people do not rise from the dead. But if Jesus really turned water into wine, he is most definitely invited to my next party.

 

[outhouse]

If the answer was that easy, scholars would be out of a job. The most scholars can say is that there is a "likelihood" this, that or the other thing happened or didn't happen.

I hate to break it to you. It's like telling a child there isn't any Santa Claus. Virgins do not give birth. Dead people do not rise from the dead. But if Jesus really turned water into wine, he is most definitely invited to my next party.

I think your missing the point.

Divinity has no real meaning, or merit.

The morals and teachings even if guessed at what a mortal Jesus may have said is where the importance lies.


And that likelihood of scholars you talk about are more firm then you represent. Probabilities are almost certain for many areas of study that contradict sharply with apologetical views.

 

[Pegg]

I was listening to a podcast this morning that raised an interesting point:

The introduction to the Gospel of Luke sure makes it sound like the author is dissatisfied with the accounts of Jesus' life that were available at the time:



The rest of the text seems to imply that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source, so here's the question: if the author of Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, does this imply that he considered Matthew to be one of the accounts that he didn't believe was the "exact truth"?

it doesnt sound like he's dissatisfied to me.

Luke is writing a personal letter to a certain Theophilus and says that others had complied a record and he thought it was fitting for him to do likewise FOR Theophilus personally.

 

[roger1440]

I think your missing the point.

Divinity has no real meaning, or merit.

The morals and teachings even if guessed at what a mortal Jesus may have said is where the importance lies.


And that likelihood of scholars you talk about are more firm then you represent. Probabilities are almost certain for many areas of study that contradict sharply with apologetical views.

Wow, that’s a loaded statement. Are you saying “the morals and teachings” are what is important, not the man? These “morals and teachings” had always existed. All of these “morals and teachings” come from Jewish scripture. With or without the historical Jesus these “morals and teachings” would exist. All the canonical Gospels had done was to put Jewish scripture into a concise format.

On a more personal note, I seldom use the word “moral”. Culture dictates what is moral. When a culture changes so does morality. Morality has been used to justify the Crusades, The Inquisition, The holocaust, witch burnings, burning heretics, etc….

 

[roger1440]

And that likelihood of scholars you talk about are more firm then you represent. Probabilities are almost certain for many areas of study that contradict sharply with apologetical views.

You are right, I stand corrected, but there firmness is on a shaky foundation. I have yet to find any scholarly work convincing. I have read Bart Ehman’s “Did Jesus Exist”. Chapter after chapter I waited impatiently for something to convince that Jesus existed. There was nothing in his entire book to convince me.


Then there is the Jesus Seminar. 150 critical scholars and laymen get together to discuss the historicity of Jesus. If it was an easy task to prove the historicity of Jesus these folks wouldn’t meet in the first place. I guess it’s a kind of job security. If scholars could prove Jesus existed they would have far less to write about in there next book. It’s like being a fireman. The last thing a fireman wants is no fires. He would be out of a job. Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rocky22]

My point isn't about their "harmony"; it's about their lack of harmony.

They match quite a bit, yes, but they also differ: for instance, Matthew has the Magi and the flight to Egypt; Luke doesn't. Matthew has one genealogy of Jesus; Luke has a different (corrected?) genealogy. In Mark, Jesus is constantly telling people not to say anything about his miracles or the fact that he's the Messiah; in Luke, everyone seems to know that Jesus is the Messiah just by looking at him.

There are two possibilities:

- Luke wasn't as complete as he claimed.
- Where the other Gospels disagree with Luke, they're wrong.

Either way, the Bible doesn't seem to be as reliable as it purports to be... no?

I remembered my pastor telling me to read The Book of John instead of the other 3 gospels, I was a bit puzzled by that. But I do believe that the snoptic gospels are somewhat twisted.

 

[outhouse]

I remembered my pastor telling me to read The Book of John instead of the other 3 gospels, I was a bit puzzled by that. But I do believe that the snoptic gospels are somewhat twisted.

Just the opposite. John is more mytsical and spiritual and less accurate.

And any pastor telling you that should be fired from teaching.

You should take them ALL into equal account as they give you different partial glimpses of the early movement in different communities.

 

[Fingy]

Just the opposite. John is more mytsical and spiritual and less accurate.

And any pastor telling you that should be fired from teaching.

You should take them ALL into equal account as they give you different partial glimpses of the early movement in different communities.

I agree with you, but John's gospel is very likely the least historicly accurate out of all the canonical gospels. In John's gospel Jesus' humanity is stripped from him. He becomes one with, and confusedly indistinguishable from God. This is not at all the picture we receive from Matthew or Mark. The events of his life are in a scrambled order. Chronology takes a back seat to highly developed Christology. I take John with a large grain of salt.

 

[outhouse]

I agree with you, but John's gospel is very likely the least historicly accurate out of all the canonical gospels. .

Exactly my point

Yet recent studies show we should not discount it so quickly.

In John's gospel Jesus' humanity is stripped from him. He becomes one with, and confusedly indistinguishable from God. This is not at all the picture we receive from Matthew or Mark. The events of his life are in a scrambled order. Chronology takes a back seat to highly developed Christology. I take John with a large grain of salt

Agreed.


Whole thing is parts of it may have went very far back, and geograpgically centered closer to any other documents. But due to its mystical theology, it has to be studied under a much brighter light with a better magnifying glass.


Look at a few differences we cannot answer.

How many times did Jesus go to the temple? John states many trips, the gospels do not. It seems likely that he would as a jew have made more then one trip in his 30 ish years of existance.

My take? we dont know either way. That is just a example of were John may be more correct then Mark. When it comes to matthew or luke, I believe those to be the weakest as they are just layered on top of mark.


All 4 represent later traditions in these different communities.

 

[Fingy]

As you noted, John's gospel is unique in its presentation of a 3 year ministry. The synoptics as far as I can tell do not give us a clear time frame of Jesus ministry (or his life). But we do not have enough evidence either way to determine if John or the synoptics are correct. We are forced to speculate and make "educated guesses". John may have traditions that are authentic, I would agree and they need to be teased out from the mystical helenizing material. I wouldn't dismiss any of the gospels entirely, they all have value due to their age (end of the 1st century or early 2nd century).

 

[nazz]

Yes

Mark who also used Q found in all 3

Mark does not contain Q material. Scholarly consensus is that Matthew and Luke are dependent on both Mark and Q.

 

[outhouse]

As you noted, John's gospel is unique in its presentation of a 3 year ministry. The synoptics as far as I can tell do not give us a clear time frame of Jesus ministry (or his life). But we do not have enough evidence either way to determine if John or the synoptics are correct. We are forced to speculate and make "educated guesses". John may have traditions that are authentic, I would agree and they need to be teased out from the mystical helenizing material. I wouldn't dismiss any of the gospels entirely, they all have value due to their age (end of the 1st century or early 2nd century).

Well put.

 

[outhouse]

Mark does not contain Q material. Scholarly consensus is that Matthew and Luke are dependent on both Mark and Q.

Good catch, im mistaken again.

 

[nazz]

Good catch, im mistaken again.

No worries