2007-12-28 04:15:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
All of them .. since it is the minor variations between them which do the most to prove their authenticity.
If four different witnesses truthfully presented the very same story in a court of law, there's no doubt a few minor variations would occur, but the basic truth of the account would be easily discerned.
So it is for the gospels.
2007-12-28 05:16:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
None of them would meet any legal standard.
But, if I was forced to pick one as the most accurate, it would be Mark, BEFORE the late addition of Mark 16:9-20. Reason? It was the first written (20 years after the fact), and therefore is likely to have the least additional baggage.
As for LEAST accurate, it would be John... the last written (at least 70 years AFTER the events described), with the most additional baggage.
Just like all myths, the story grew in the retelling. The four canonical gospels clearly attest to that fact. (Mark - around 50 CE, Matthew - around 65 CE, Luke - around 70 CE, John - around 100 CE)
2007-12-28 18:23:40 · answer #2 · answered by phoenixshade 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Luke because he is "more educated" than the rest being a doctor, and that in the beginning of his gospel he appears to did some deep research--including existing records at that time.
On the other hand the 4 gospels are synoptic, that is they complement each other. So, if I were I judge I would consider the 4, not just one.
2007-12-28 12:24:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Gospel of Thomas
2007-12-28 12:29:19 · answer #4 · answered by Shawn B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
None of them. Religion has no place in a court of law. If you don't believe me then just look at some of the countries that do have religious legal systems. Do we really want a court system that puts people in prison based on the naming of a teddy bear?
2007-12-28 12:20:49 · answer #5 · answered by James Melton 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
John's Gospel. He presents the evidence of Christ's divinity sequentially, each point building on the ones before it; plus his opening argument is brilliant.
2007-12-28 12:21:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have to agree with A2Z. There are so many disturbing contradictions between them, that it's hard to take any of them seriously. Would the court of law choose a penal code that had such contradictions? "Thou shalt not speed...... Thou SHALT speed."
2007-12-28 12:26:11 · answer #7 · answered by guyster 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
“Gospel of the Kingdom of God” (The Good News)
MARK 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of The Kingdom of God
From the above Verse, it is clear that Christ, Jesus-The Son of Mary preached the Gospel of The Kingdom of God. This Gospel (The Good News) actually contained the Words of God because of course, it was the Gospel of The Kingdom of God which was preached ONLY by Jesus. There is not even anything as the Gospel of Jesus as noted by Mark 1:1. The words of the Gospel which Jesus (pbuh) preached, were not his words as he says:
JOHN 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Matthew and John were actually the disciples of Jesus (pbuh). But did they really write these Gospels by themselves. Do we have Gospels “BY” Matthew and John? From an account in the Gospel of Matthew, we can clearly see that this Gospel is not written by Matthew himself:
MATTHEW 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
If Matthew would have been the author of this Gospel, he surely would have written that “.. and he saith unto “ME”… and “I” arose and followed him.”
Luke and Mark were not even the disciples of Jesus. Luke was a physician and a companion of St Paul and Mark was an interpreter who probably worked with St Peter in Rome.
The Gospels also differ from each other a lot:
Was Joseph the Son of Jacob (MATTHEW 1:16) or was he the Son of Heli (LUKE 3:23)?
Why isn’t the ascension of Jesus (pbuh) to heaven mentioned in Matthew and John?
These Gospels which were written down 100 Years after Jesus (pbuh) ascension, circulated anonymously, no names were attached to them until almost 200 and the Christian theologians who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was condemned as heretic.
Do we have that True Gospel which Jesus Christ (pbuh) Preached in Hebrew or Aramaic?
Did Jesus (pbuh) asked Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to write these Gospels?
How can Christians rely on the accounts in these Gospels which are the basic Pillars of their Faith?
2007-12-28 12:19:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋