Oh bless. Matthew goes up the mountain like Moses with a clipboard, while Luke plants his feet in the mud and starts flipping tables with beatitude bombs.
What’s delicious here is how it shatters the bedtime story of a single, unified Gospel. As if the early church just photocopied the truth and passed it around like a potluck flyer. Please. Mark dropped the skeleton, Q tossed in the muscle, and Matthew and Luke each stitched on a different skin.
And that final line? “There probably never was a pure Gospel.” That is the Gospel.
Sacred contradiction is not a flaw. It’s the fingerprint of something alive.
I love the lens you provide here. I like the fact that the Gospels show that even Jesus' disciples couldn't agree on who he was/is. I think I've always landed somewhere in the middle. I see both the human prophet Jesus AND the God in the flesh Jesus. Somehow they never felt contradictive for me. Though I do think I see more of the human prophet Jesus than I did growing up. I think that's why I feel comfortable wearing both a star of David and a cross together on the same chain.
I've always compared the four Gospels to 4 people standing on the four corners of an intersection (Yes, I know two of them weren't physically with Jesus, but work with me here.) If there is a car accident at the intersection and the police question the four people will give differing accounts. Why? Different perspectives. Your article gives a great view of Matthew and Luke's perspective. What perspectives do Mark's and John's Gospels have?
My professor in seminary downplayed the role of Q & argued oral tradition played a large role in the compilations we regard as the Synoptics. Of course, there were many gospels of Jesus floating around at the time, including those of the Nag Hamaddi library which are labeled Gnostic. Read anything by Elaine Pages on those if you get a chance!
John’s gospel is attempting to deal with the Gnostic challenges to orthodox views of the incarnation.
I’m still skeptical if there is a historical Jesus. I’ve been influenced by Dr. Richard Carrier’s work lately.
I'm good with the "historical Jesus" if for no other reason than in the beginning of the first century, under Roman occupation, the Galilee was rife with itinerate rabbis preaching another "kingdom." There are one or three who's graves are still revered to this day by small Jewish sects. I'd have to do some research to find the background for you, but it's out there.
Oh bless. Matthew goes up the mountain like Moses with a clipboard, while Luke plants his feet in the mud and starts flipping tables with beatitude bombs.
What’s delicious here is how it shatters the bedtime story of a single, unified Gospel. As if the early church just photocopied the truth and passed it around like a potluck flyer. Please. Mark dropped the skeleton, Q tossed in the muscle, and Matthew and Luke each stitched on a different skin.
And that final line? “There probably never was a pure Gospel.” That is the Gospel.
Sacred contradiction is not a flaw. It’s the fingerprint of something alive.
That very well said Alexsander!
I love the lens you provide here. I like the fact that the Gospels show that even Jesus' disciples couldn't agree on who he was/is. I think I've always landed somewhere in the middle. I see both the human prophet Jesus AND the God in the flesh Jesus. Somehow they never felt contradictive for me. Though I do think I see more of the human prophet Jesus than I did growing up. I think that's why I feel comfortable wearing both a star of David and a cross together on the same chain.
I learned a bit about this in a class I took in a mainstream denomination a decade ago. Nice to see another explanation.
I've always compared the four Gospels to 4 people standing on the four corners of an intersection (Yes, I know two of them weren't physically with Jesus, but work with me here.) If there is a car accident at the intersection and the police question the four people will give differing accounts. Why? Different perspectives. Your article gives a great view of Matthew and Luke's perspective. What perspectives do Mark's and John's Gospels have?
My professor in seminary downplayed the role of Q & argued oral tradition played a large role in the compilations we regard as the Synoptics. Of course, there were many gospels of Jesus floating around at the time, including those of the Nag Hamaddi library which are labeled Gnostic. Read anything by Elaine Pages on those if you get a chance!
John’s gospel is attempting to deal with the Gnostic challenges to orthodox views of the incarnation.
I’m still skeptical if there is a historical Jesus. I’ve been influenced by Dr. Richard Carrier’s work lately.
I'm good with the "historical Jesus" if for no other reason than in the beginning of the first century, under Roman occupation, the Galilee was rife with itinerate rabbis preaching another "kingdom." There are one or three who's graves are still revered to this day by small Jewish sects. I'd have to do some research to find the background for you, but it's out there.