Who Wrote The Gospels?

[headinhands]

"Matthew contains 606 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke."

A good diagram here

[OiVaVoi]

Q source?

[headinhands]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

[headinhands]

q source explained

[headinhands]

This raises some interesting questions. Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.

www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

[saintsalive]

All scripture was inspired by God.

So it is rather a moot point as to who wrote the gospels.

[headinhands]

If it's god inspired why did god inspire one of the gospel writers to repeat almost all of what he had inspired another gospel writer to write. His chance to get something down and communicate with mankind and he repeats 90% of another gospel. Why did god include events that didn't happen such as the census Mary and Joseph had to go to?

[saintsalive]

Obviously I am not going to agree with you that there were events that didnt happen.

Dont know why there are repeats. No idea.
But does it matter?
Pop songs for instance seem to repeat themselves over and over. Perhaps the massage gets in better that way?
And I am sure that God managed to get everything said that he wanted to

[thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts]

This isn't going to be sorted out on MN although much heat will be generated I'm sure. The debates over who wrote the gospels and when have been going on in academia for years. There was a book a few years ago 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' by Richard Bauckham which is fairly hard going but interesting as it brings back to the forefront of academic debate the issue of the gospels as eyewitness testimony which had become unfashionable.

[capsium]

They had a ghost writer (?)

The similarities do not bother me. People who spend time together, have shared experiences and believe the same things, will often say the same things. It follows that it is not that surprising they write some of the same things. The written discourse will contain stuff they spoke about.

Having different Gospels does not concern me either. Some things are phrased and viewed from a slightly different perspective. It gives more of an all round view of Jesus.

[headinhands]

"But does it matter?"

If no one is making any claims about the bible then no but you say the bible is god inspired and caps feels the gospels provide her with evidence. If you make a claim that reality doesn't back up then that causes a problem for you. Either you stop making claims or you change the claims.

[capsium]

head Although, be fair, I have never claimed evidence of the scientific sort. Anecdotal, experiential yes, but not empirical.

[headinhands]

"Pop songs"

If I said 'this pop song was written by the most powerful being in the universe who can make galaxies just by speaking" you'd expect that pop song to be, at the very least, a bit special. What evidence would you want to back it up? What reasoning would you use to reject my claim?

[capsium]

Claims? I talk about my belief, Faith and insight.

[capsium]

...which are beyond reasoning due to the nature of belief, Faith and insight.

[capsium]

...or outside of reasoning or apart from reasoning, if you prefer.

[SpiderStacy]

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptics, but John is out on his own.

[headinhands]

You still make claims. Are you saying some claims are exempt from scrutiny? Not on my watch. Claims should have he necessary weight to back them up. It's the best way of working out what's real. If I start to think 'ooh that person said this thing happened and I like the sound of it so I'm gonna think it's true' then I'm not using honest reasoning am I.

[headinhands]

caps you claimed god provides benefits to his believers that can't be explained through other means but you have yet to show us any shred of evidence.

[capsium]

Why lie and preach Truth?

[headinhands]

caps would you not expect there to be scientific data that would back up your claims of gods assistance to his believers? I would.

[headinhands]

"Why lie and preach truth"

Eh?

[capsium]

head I told you about some of the nature of benefits I have experienced, in the last thread. The evidence is of the anecdotal sort.

There are too many variables to make it empirical.

[capsium]

Well, why would a lier preach the Truth? Another way of saying the nature of what is written in the Bible speaks for itself.