Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People shouldn't create Gospel "Harmonies". It should be outlawed lol!
Many have tried, and all have failed.
On the other hand, I guess we can thank these "Lives of Jesus" for helping in jumpstarting the Historical Jesus scholarship of the past couple hundred years. Many of these "Lives of Jesus" were pretty impressive, and really asked some hard-hitting questions. I wonder if many people even consult them when embarking on their own "harmonizations"?
Everyone should check out Reimarus and his Life of Jesus - at least, what we have of it.
I briefly looked at it, but it's not really a "harmony"....
It's just a side-listing of the gospels, with colors. That's not "harmonizing", at all. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid....
I've been working on the article.
I eliminated the expansion buttons so it should now be much easier to view.
I've also added buttons to turn the highlighting on and off.
all 4 gospels are fully harmonized.
I am not aware of any contradictions anywhere in the harmony.
If anyone finds one then please let me know.
I've been working on the article.
I eliminated the expansion buttons so it should now be much easier to view.
I've also added buttons to turn the highlighting on and off.
all 4 gospels are fully harmonized.
I am not aware of any contradictions anywhere in the harmony.
If anyone finds one then please let me know.
The contradictions and inadequacies of your "harmonies" been posted in other threads. Maybe you should start there.
Yes, I did a select overview on the resurrection reconciliation thread. However the same thing applies. There are differences. Undeniable differences. The question is whether we believe that that it is feasible that reporters who tell stories that disagree so much in certain areas and even omit really important events can really have accurate knowledge?
Is it really right to get four people telling such divergent accounts of the supposedly same story and 'weave' (not to say cut up and repaste) it so as to make a single account, which of course is still divergent?
I say that it's untenable. I say that it is wilfully deluding oneself to look at the four crucifixion accounts and claim that they are all telling the same story but from 'different points of view'.
That's said it is an impressive piece of work and the colouring of the bits that do correspond is invaluable in seeing the various bits that do match all four (original story), all three synoptics (Proto -matthew) Luke and Matthew (Q material) Luke and John (circulating later stories) and Matthew and Mark (revised synoptic original).
The huge amounts of white can perhaps be designated 'copyrighted material'.
I commend the effort made to make it easier to look at, but I noted a minor problem, of course. The temple cleansing is just across the three synoptics and in John, it appears before the end of the baptism. It should (in line with the cutting and pasting work) be lifted and put back where it belongs (after John 12 19) But then that might cause one to ask 'Why on earth was it got out of place?'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2012 at 02:07 AM..
Yes, I did a select overview on the resurrection reconciliation thread. However the same thing applies. There are differences. Undeniable differences. The question is whether we believe that that it is feasible that reporters who tell stories that disagree so much in certain areas and even omit really important events can really have accurate knowledge?
Is it really right to get four people telling such divergent accounts of the supposedly same story and 'weave' (not to say cut up and repaste) it so as to make a single account, which of course is still divergent?
I say that it's untenable. I say that it is wilfully deluding oneself to look at the four crucifixion accounts and claim that they are all telling the same story but from 'different points of view'.
That's said it is an impressive piece of work and the colouring of the bits that do correspond is invaluable in seeing the various bits that do match all four (original story), all three synoptics (Proto -matthew) Luke and Matthew (Q material) Luke and John (circulating later stories) and Matthew and Mark (revised synoptic original).
The huge amounts of white can perhaps be designated 'copyrighted material'.
I commend the effort made to make it easier to look at, but I noted a minor problem, of course. The temple cleansing is just across the three synoptics and in John, it appears before the end of the baptism. It should (in line with the cutting and pasting work) be lifted and put back where it belongs (after John 12 19) But then that might cause one to ask 'Why on earth was it got out of place?'
Your Gospel scholarship is impeccable, Arequipa . . . but it only matters if the bible MUST be inerrant and infallible . . . which it could never be in the hands of human beings. You actually make the case for the "cherry pickers" who recognize they are human fallible recordings that CONTAIN inspirations from God . . . NOT dictated and authored by God.
lIn fact it goes far deeper than that. I observed shortly after I arrived here that lists of contradiction only showed that the Bible was not the perfectly correct and uncontradictory dictated Word of God, but had been written by men who made mistakes.
That really made little difference as it was argued that God simply 'inspired' it rather than actually oversaw it to ensure that it was all perfectly correct. Even if it was full of discrepancies, it was still as reliable a report of the basic facts as we could expect from any written work of the time.
What these harmonisations (and especially Granpa's excellent work in showing what bits of text match and what does not) show is that it takes a certain desire to avoid seeing the glaring discrepancies, contradictions and omissions to fail to observe that the four accounts have been seriously tinkered with.
What I reckon I can show is not the the usual list of disagreement about the number of angels or whether the sermon was on the mount or on a level place, but that massive editing of a original written documents has gone on and a huge amount has been invented by the writers. I reckon I can also show that the original 'story' was itself a document produced by Christians to show depict Jesus as a Pauline Christian or at least arguing their religious views- which had gone further that even Paul had - in arguing against Jewish law and custom and especially dumping the blame for Jesus' very Roman execution on the Jews.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You just make the case for the "cherry-pickers."
