Also the version of Jesus presented in the Synoptic Gospels is different from the Gospel of John. He speaks very little about himself; he is focused on the coming of the Kingdom of God. Prior to this unit I considered all the Gospels to
In chapter 3 of Speaking of Jesus, Carl Medearis talks about what it means to own Christianity. He says "If we don't truly know what the gospel is, we have to find an explanation for Christianity." Meaning that if we do not know what the gospel is or what it is teaching us, then we try to define it by our own standards, and that is where it gets messy. Medearis talks about how Christianity is more than a religion, but it is a relationship and people tend to not understand that. He explains why people are so defensive and put up their guards towards Christians, because Christians can be so judgemental.
• Jesus is an unavoidable and deeply mysterious figure. We do not know as much about Him as we would like to know. This can make it difficult to grasp what Jesus was about. People found him confusing in His own day and the same is true today. • One major reason we have trouble understanding Jesus is that His world is strange and, to many Westerners, foreign.
Van Biema presents several ideas that to him prove that those four gospels are unreliable and cannot be trusted. Van Biema presents a critical view point
The author appeals to traditions of ancient historiography, which valued eyewitness testimony over written sources. Bauckham argues: “Testimony offers us, I wish to suggest, both a reputable historiographic category for reading the Gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus.” In other words, Bauckham isarguing that the Gospels are not negated by the fact that eyewitness testimony was the main source of information, but rather strengthened by this fact and should be taken more seriously. In Bauckham’s opinion, it is likely that the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus accurately portray the life of Jesus.10 Murray J. Harris affirms the idea that the gospel writers were very intentional with their description of Jesus as divine. In “The Word Was God,” a section of his book Jesus as God:
There seems to be a desire by more liberal scholars of the New Testament to date the gospels into the second century and say that they were written by 2nd century writers who were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus. Luke acknowledges in the prologue to his gospel that he was not an eyewitness to Jesus but states that he at least interviewed eyewitnesses when he writes: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.”
The New Testament contains the four Gospels, which include Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection. The book of Acts and the epistles (letters) written by leaders of this newly formed faith portray the struggles and persecution the church endured. The last book (Revelation) foretells Jesus’ return to earth to rescue all of his followers, so that we may live on the New Earth (Heaven) with Jesus for eternity.
Lyndon B Johnson became the thirty-sixth President of the United States after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was born and raised in Texas and lived in poverty; therefore, he felt that poverty was a more pressing issue than segregation (Shultz, 2013). He felt that if everyone had food, an education and a good paying job that America would be a “Great Society”. This brought us some of the social welfare that we continue to have today, such as the Head Start and Housing and Urban Development.
Both of ours include the same main points, and I believe that it is so important to make sure to not leave out any aspect of the Gospel when explaining
Maybe this issue was common in the early church, (as in the case of the creeds) but modern scholars and church leaders now understand the weight of the gospel message as a whole? Nevertheless, because the issue is one that involves the epicenter of practically the entire Bible, and thus the entire Christian message, there is no doubt that it is worth bringing to the table and clarifying. This then, is the point of the gospels that Wright is trying to get at: Jesus came to reestablish his kingdom. Wright begins by clearly stating the problem that he has with certain interpretations or ways of observing the gospels.
Question:"Consider the figure of Jesus in the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Who or what is Jesus, in the Gospel that you have selected?" When studying the Gospel of John, Jesus is identified as the Son of God because the metaphor of the Lamb is used, Jesus Christ is mentioned instead of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus acknowledges himself to the world as the Son of God. In the Gospel, the Lamb of God is referenced multiple times and distinguishes a sacrifice is in the mist. The reader consciously knows Jesus is God’s only son, nevertheless making the role of sacrifice an even harder burden to carry.
The Gospel of John contains some of the most profound truth which is expressed in the simplest way. It is full of imagery and symbolism which though concise and limited bears deep spiritual meaning. In his book, The Interpretation of the fourth Gospel, C. H. Dodd must have been the first to identify the leading ideas and thus separate in form and function the allegories of the Gospel of John from the synoptic parables and connect them with the Old Testament and the Hellenistic-Jewish symbolic tradition. That is to say the author of this Gospel mostly uses common things present in the life and tradition of his listeners and uses them to make the divine understandable. Koester in his book on Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel says that:
Therefore, a critical analysis need not be a negative research of the Four Gospels, as it can be a faithful study which supports it. Before any conclusions can be made regarding the Four Gospels, it is important to establish their message. The core message of the Four Gospels is the kerygma of Jesus Christ. Any analysis that considers Jesus Christ and his proclamations historically inaccurate, make the whole Bible worthless.
Everyone knows the gospels are very important to the Catholic Church, But why? We read them at mass every Sunday so they must have a deeper meaning. Well that’s just it. They teach about Jesus’ life on earth, his death and resurrection. They might differ from each other but that is because they were written by four different authors.
I am aware of the gospels that we have which are Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke, but just like the manner of how God reveals himself in other religions outside Christianity, the other divisions of the gospels came across as a another shocker for me. Although I am aware of the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene, but that is merely because of the film The Da Vinci Code, and I did not really know the entire extent of the Gnostic Gospels, which further escalated my curiosity for this topic. Anyhow, I believe by having these kind of divisions for the Gospel is good, because it helps people know and understand the truth about our faith. The way I see it, if the Gnostic Gospels were not classified as it is then there would be disunity and confusion around us in our religion. If it were not for the Canonical Gospels, the official gospels of the bible as they were written out of devotional and evangelical purpose, no one would be then certain of what our faith is really about and who Jesus Christ truly is to us.
