Why is there a difference between the number of loaves and fish between the gospels? Is the number 5 and 2 or 7 and 2? Also the leftover baskets 7 or 12? This definitely in my mind blows Sola Scriptura out of the
Mark 8:19 and 20 answers my question.
Not really sure rlwood711, but isn’t that funny how there are inconsistencies between books. I think, personally, it’s because each Gospel is a different person, and each person is going to see the truth through their eyes.
My innerstanding is that you are trying to put oral teaching into written form. Well, if you know anything about oral teaching, you’ll know that it’s kind of like a game of telephone, and as it goes down the grapevine, you lose some of the meaning. This probably explains why there’s an inconsistency with the numbering.
But, heck if I know. I’m an Ex-Catholic. I’m sure someone who is Catholic can explain the nuance. I’m not one for oral tradition, sorry. It’s the same gripe I have with this Bible everyone carries around. The fact that this Bible has been retranslated every single year, the meaning is so watered down anymore that it’s hard to be accurate. We honestly only needed it translated one time, so why we go through the trouble of retranslating The Bible every year is beyond me at this point.
I’m personally curious myself. There’s a lot of inconsistency in Scripture. Let’s see what someone of the faith has to say.
Exactly….God is very logical, or as you say, OMNilogical. God could never not make sense, cause God makes every bit of sense. Yes, He’s a spirit, so He doesn’t have the limitations we have down here. But that doesn’t mean He defies logic, God wants us to innerstand Him, this is why we’re here, to better innerstand God and our purpose down here, which God can help us know.
Like you said Stephen:
Soon we will all be one bread and one body through the 2 natures, One God in being.
The explanation behind why some gospels have a detail written slightly different to another is because the writers of these were not copying a manuscript but the lived experiences of actual people, either directly or through others, themselves not necessarily in the same company of those whom the other writers were associated with, and each presenting a different angle and at different dates.
Differences make the accounts more believable, not less; had every detail been the same, it would have been too consistent in accuracy and, not that the gospels would have consequently been thought of as false, but that the New Testament would come across as a bit too…devised and put together. There we breath, rather, the distinct freshness of realism.
Gospel of Mark is the first one
But the other Gospel was made for a different audience.
Matthew Gospel = For Jewish audience
Luke Gospel = Non Jewish audience (City folks etc)
John Gospel = Very spiritual gospel, Jesus’ divinity is way more focused on here
I had to look up what is meant by The Synoptic Gospels earlier this week. You guys can judge me if you want ; )
Summed up.
And Gospel of John is its own divine thing.
But i could be wrong? Wikipedia covers this as this.
Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1 and 2.
Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran “with great joy” to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).
However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.
How can this be reconciled?
“Gospel of Luke borrows from…”.
No, it doesn’t. Some say St. Luke was also the scribe who went onto to take an account of St. Paul’s mission.
There are no “contradictions” in Scripture. But there are differences in how each of the evangelists of the Gospels relay/report what they have seen, heard, and Inspired to tell us. They compliment each other, not contradict each other.
It’s sort of like looking at the light which shines through a prism. The resulting light is fragmented into various colors such as red, blue, green, yellow, orange, etc. However, each of the colors originate from the same Light. The prism colors don’t contradict each other, but rather compliment each other in its’ view.
For example, if there were 10 people who witness a scene, the same exact scene, each of those witnesses would describe and report what they had seen, but in different terms, from different perspectives. What would appear as contradictions are only different views of the same scene they witnessed.
An online course (free) I’ve taken which precisely describes and explains this can be found at the Christendom College - Foundations of the New Testament with Dr. Eric Jenislawski.
https://online.christendom.edu/courses/foundations-of-the-new-testament
I hope this has been somehow helpful. +
Tommy,
re: “There are no ‘contradictions’ in Scripture. But there are differences in how each of the evangelists of the Gospels relay/report what they have seen, heard, and Inspired to tell us. They compliment each other, not contradict each other.”
I don’t see how the Matthew 28:1-10 and John 20:1 and 2 accounts complement each other.
In Matthew 28:1-10 we read about the resurrection of Jesus and a description of the Angel of the Lord rolling back of the stone to the tomb.
However, in John 20: 1-18 we read an expansion of and compliment to Matthew 28: 1-10.
John’s account of what Matthew tells us isn’t limited to John 20:1, but rather expanded to John 20: 1-18.
When you read John’s account in chapter 20, don’t stop at solely verse 1. Continue reading all of verses 1-18. Then re-read Matthew 28: 1-10. The picture then becomes clearer by what we find in John 20:1-18.
Yes, these two accounts in both Matthew and John compliment each other, from each of the Evangelists’ reported accounts, in each one’s perspective. One account compliments the other account.
While Matthew is writing to a different audience than that of John. They both are telling us the same thing, one with more details and emphasis than the other.
This is another great example how two or more witnesses, to the same exact incident, report in their own perspectives of the same incident.
The Gospel according to Matthew is written to Jews. But John’s Gospel was written for a universal audience of both Jews and Gentiles living throughout the Greco-Roman world. Two different audiences, two seperate complimenting accounts of the Resurrection.
The New American Bible - Revised Edition (NABRE) has significant and important footnotes as a Study Guide which references to parallels and cross-references of all 4 Gospels. Those Footnotes help the reader in resolving and explaining what we may not see as obvious when we read a specific Scripture in isolation from all other Scripture.
Tommy,
You’re missing the point of my question. The account in Matthew says that when Mary M. got to the tomb she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Hearing that made her joyful and she took off to inform the disciples. However, in John she left after seeing that the stone had been removed from the entrance and left to tell the disciples that the Messiah had been taken and that she didn’t know where He was. How are those two accounts complementary?
Look carefully at John 20: 18
Tommy,
re: “Look carefully at John 20: 18”
That was the second time Mary came to the tomb. John 20:1 was the first time.
