2006-12-20 02:47:49 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
All three of the above gospels were written about 60A.D., plus or minus five years or less. Luke seems to be more certain at 60A.D. The other Matthew and Mark are not as certain, but were written very close to Luke in time periods. Some believe Matthew was after Mark and Luke.
Who can be certain which was first?
John was written about 30 years later.
Luke said that he consulted with those who had spent their time with Jesus for the informataion in his gospel.
Matthew shows Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Mark shows Jesus as a man.
Luke shows Jesus as a healer/miracle worker.
John shows Jesus as deity.
For recon, there is a chronological Bible.
2006-12-20 03:12:03 · answer #1 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Luke did research for his gospel about Christ. He might have used Mark and Matthew as sources, but you will find differences in Luke. He also talked to eyewitnesses. Even if Luke was plagarized. you still hve John so it would theorectically be 3 gospels. Teehee, you made a mistake!!
2006-12-20 12:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Silly rabbit! Matthew and Mark were apostles and wrote there accounts of the ministry of Jesus the Christ first. Luke was a latter convert who was moved by the Holy Spirit to write to others in the world. But even if that weren't so, eliminating Luke would still leave THREE gospels. So, I guess it is true, you haven't ever read the Bible? Merry Christmas.
2006-12-20 10:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
first of all... plagiarism wasn't considered when the counsel was choosing which books to compose into the Bible. The books sound very similar but ar not told verbatum. One reason why they are all allowed is because every diciple told a story in a different manner and because these particular men actually walked with Jesus and the gospels sounded gospel worthy... they where included. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all have different characters and all played a diff. part in the life of Jesus as Jesus did to them. Read them carefully!
2006-12-20 10:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were? Most scholars . . . and I presume that you are one, making such a dogmatic statement . . . believe that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke, knowing the book, followed Mark's brief Gospel outline and added events, etc, from the life of Christ that were well-known, but not included in Mark's Gospel.
Each of the synoptics, though they follow a parallel line, contributes uniqueness to the Gospel story. John, written much later, stands out as contributing 93% unique material to the Story. Complementary material, not contradictory.
2006-12-20 10:55:28 · answer #5 · answered by mediocritis 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke (a few hundred years after they were written) are based on the Q document.
There are also a lot of Gospels that did not make it in the Cannon, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
2006-12-20 10:51:46 · answer #6 · answered by Mrs. Pears 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sho-Nuff...actually it would be nice if there was one chronological gospel instead of four.
However, that is not what God intended, these books were circulated & had different audiences in mind.
Matthew-to the Jewish people
Mark-to the Romans
Luke-to Theophilus, a greek
John- a universal gospel, primarily to Gentiles
Also, are you referring to plagerism in a negative way?
Edit 1
Person-Yes, I know the THEORY of Q, but it is still just that, a THEORY.
2006-12-20 10:53:37 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff- <3 God <3 people 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they are definately not plagerized. Differant message diferent personality problems in the authors lotsa obvious differances and Mark can be dated further back than Luke. Mathew is written by a Jew which shows clearly and Luke is obviously a Gentile as he misunderstands the last supper which is actually on the day of preparation not on Passover.
2006-12-20 13:07:37 · answer #8 · answered by icheeknows 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to hear your factual information to back this up. A bunch of scholars decided that because Matthew and Mark didn't have anything that new in them, they must have copied Luke. This is the arrogance of the atheists. This is also the type of weak argument they push for evolution and a host of other "proven" facts.
2006-12-20 10:54:04 · answer #9 · answered by AT 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There was no plagarism. Each man wrote his own account, lead by the spirit of Christ. Each has added or different details, but they all were written in the spirit about the life and death and ressurection of Jesus. Each one adds to , reaffirms and complements the other.
2006-12-20 11:15:06 · answer #10 · answered by country nana 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋