Among the many....
Published on April 21, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
Since there's been some talk on JU recently about the integrity of the gospels I thought I'd touch on it lightly here and also since somewhere along the way I promised I would. Of course I can't remember to who but a promise is a promise!!

What are the gospels?

Gospel means "good news." Of course this good news is the record of salvation that has been opened to mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are sort of like biographies as we understand that literary form today. Mostly, they were written that people might know who Jesus was and believe in Him. Of course you have to read them to be convinced of this. Sad to say, many don't take the time but only listen to what others have to say about them.

Why Did the Gospels Need to Be Written?

The rapid spread of Christianity precipitated the need for written accounts of the life of Christ. As major figures to the stories and eyewitnesses began to die, there was an increasing need for written accounts of what they had seen and heard. Each gospel has a distinctive pupose. Each had a different audience to whom it was written for. These writings were carefully copied and sent out to the new churches cropping up all over and were used of early Christian worship.

Why Four Gospels?

Although there were numerous other gospel accounts written, only four were chosen and deemed worthy to be included in the New Testament. The other gospels were written later and are of doubtful reliability. These other gospels while including some information that the original four had they also lend themselves to obviously fanciful and legendary tales. They often tried to bolster heretical viewpoints. The early church distinguished these gospels from the true ones and regarded the apocryphal ones as of much lesser importance. One very important criteria used in the selection process was that the Four Gospels were written by Apostles or by a close associate. Later church councils confirmed what had already been accepted by the early church. They believed only these four were authentic and included them in the canon, or collection of books, recognized as inspired and authoritative.

The Gospels were written to the four general groups of people in the first century. Matthew was written for the Jews; Mark for the Romans; Luke for the other Gentiles; and John for Christians.

What Are the Synoptic Gospels?

The first three, Matthew, Mark & Luke present much similar material about the life of Christ. They have more or less a common view of the events, places, teachings and chronology of events. That's why they are called the Synoptic Gospels (from synopsis, a viewing together). John on the other hand is a bit different. Much of his material is unique in comparison to the other three. His gospel deals more with the deity of Christ where the others on his humanity.

These four gospels with their differences supplement each other without contradiction and the similarities complement each other. The result is a comprehensive fourfold record of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.

A fascinating read all of them. I encourage everyone to read them at least once in their lifetime. Why not start today?



.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 22, 2006
With palms together,
Good afternoon KFC,

Thank you for posting this most interesting introduction to your scriptures. I have read these gospels. I enjoy St. Matthew in particular. Some few years ago, probably about 30 or so, I took a wonderful class on the life and teachings of Jesus taught by a terrific professor who was, incidentally, a Southern Baptist, but still a very bright and open man. I also took a class on the New Testament and a few other dablings in Christian theology. The courses and especially the class interaction were most challenging. These were taught in a small southern private college so I was often considered a foriegner. But that was fine with me. Anyway, I found the synoptics of great interest, not only morally, but especially in light of the fundamentalist belief that these are the literal word of God and are absolutely true, down to each dot and dash, were there any.

As I lived in this southern Baptist town, filled with the spirit, as it were, I was enlightened by the townfolks distrust of outsiders, their dislike of people who were poor, of color, and who didn't speak english with a southern slant. I learned alot there.

Now Matthew has a lot of wonderful things to say. I feel a close affinity to Jesus as he is portrayed in the text. I wonder why so many Christians have such difficulty with his message, say in the Sermon on the Mount? Not long ago I read Tolsoy's work on a similar theme, he seemed to have a lot of trouble with the Church and its use of the gospels, as well as its reluctance to behave more Jesus-like.

I agree with you, more people should actually read these texts. I would hope they would follow the teachings of this man. Perhaps we might stop killing each other, embrace our enemies, feed the poor, treat whores and prostitutes as the human beings they are.

I disagree with you on many levels howeever. I do not think the gospels really portray a picture of the actual Jesus, but rather a picture of who the Church needed in order to create and maintain their religion. As I mentioned in another thread, I am currently reading, though slowly, a book about Paul and how he essentially created and formed the early Church. If Jesus were here today, I really believe he would be appalled by the things done in his name, the distortion of his teaching and the greed of the church itself. Moreover, I think our contemporary theologians would have him driven out of town on a rail.

Anyway, thank you again for this post. I look forward to reading the many responses you will have.

Be well.
on Apr 22, 2006
I found the synoptics of great interest, not only morally, but especially in light of the fundamentalist belief that these are the literal word of God and are absolutely true, down to each dot and dash, were there any.


I agree with this but only in the original language in which they were penned. I believe God breathed out these words to the Apostles that wrote them. It also makes more sense than anything else I've ever read, and I do read a ton!!

I wonder why so many Christians have such difficulty with his message, say in the Sermon on the Mount?


I don't understand what you mean here? What difficulty?

As I mentioned in another thread, I am currently reading, though slowly, a book about Paul and how he essentially created and formed the early Church.


but this is based on opinion. Why would you believe this over the written scripture that will still be the best seller while you and I are dead and buried. While the naysayers have come and gone the word of God endures.......exactly like it said it would.

If Jesus were here today, I really believe he would be appalled by the things done in his name, the distortion of his teaching and the greed of the church itself. Moreover, I think our contemporary theologians would have him driven out of town on a rail.


I absolutely agree with you here. While I'm in agreement with SB theology for the most part I don't look to man in forming my beliefs. I base man made religions on how they line up with scripture. I believve the SB along with a few others are still preaching the word of God as it is written. But we are also losing many mainstream religions out there that are no longer preaching/teaching that of the historic Christian church.

BTW....Adrian Rogers who is the best known SB preacher of modern times is my absolutely favorite guy... Link


Anyway, thank you again for this post. I look forward to reading the many responses you will have


you're welcome....... but I'm not too sure I'll get alot of responses.

on Apr 25, 2006
you're welcome....... but I'm not too sure I'll get alot of responses.


It seems you are right on...What do we have to do to light the fire?

The gospel of Matthew is of interest to me as it contains the Sermon on the Mount. I have often thought of this as a marvelous teaching, yet one so many struggle to live out. Any thoughts on this? (I wish I were at my monastery, I miss my library terribly.) I confess not having a copy of that scripture of yours in hand to review.



Be well


on Apr 25, 2006
Hey nice picture.

I think the reason this isn't getting many hits is because its something you either have done (read them) or have not done.

Oh and its nice outside.....hahaha.
on Apr 25, 2006
Funny Sodaiho but this is exactly how I pictured you in my mind. Weird.

I will get back to you on the Sermon on the MT. Anything specific? If not I'll give you some random thoughts. But is that all you like about Matthew's gospel or all that you can remember?

I confess not having a copy of that scripture of yours in hand to review.


Hey, what ails ya? JK. Well you know it's not a hard book to find out there. God has made quite sure it's readily available. So no one is going to have to say they didn't have a chance.

I think the reason this isn't getting many hits is because its something you either have done (read them) or have not done


maybe. I was thinking it was because it had more fact than opinion and it would be hard to refute.

Oh and its nice outside.....hahaha.


well maybe for you it is......are you bragging or complaining? For me it's gray and drizzly but heard a rumor the sun is coming our way. Hoooooray!!
on Apr 26, 2006
The Gospels were written to the four general groups of people in the first century. Matthew was written for the Jews; Mark for the Romans; Luke for the other Gentiles; and John for Christians.


Someone explained it to me exactly this way and I was sure I was gonna comment saying you missed this point, lol! Darn it, you got me here
on Apr 26, 2006
There are some things I know I don't like. I recall Jesus speaks rather harshly of others, especially Pharisees and the priests. I find it out of character for this man of peace and good will. He calls them vipers or snakes or something. What might be the point of such name calling and anger?

I also recall the piece about turning the other cheek as being interesting in light of the fact so many seem to be so eager not to follow this advice today. And to not kill. And to give away your coat. In my faith, generosity is also considered a "paramita" or "excellence" or "perfection" a gate through which enlightenment may be attained. This generosity should be given without respect to self and without thought as to the recipient's deservingness. We don't quibble about the difference between murder and killing as some do regards the decalogue. We accept some killing must take place, beings do live off of each other, but we see the deliberate causing of harm to be an offense against the sacral nature of the universe.

When we see a hungry person, ought we not feed him? Or a person needing a coat, should we not clothe him?

Be well.
on Apr 26, 2006
I was thinking it was because it had more fact than opinion and it would be hard to refute.


I guess at some point people make a conscious decision...either its true and I choose to believe it, or its a not and I choose not to believe it.

The reason I said the weather is nice...I find the warmer and sunnier it is outside (though it rained all day yesterday) the less research or opinionation (my word, like it?) I wanna do....

I think most know not to come to your blog and comment without knowing what they believe and why.
on Apr 26, 2006
Good article, KFC, well-written.

How do you date the Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels? There is a body of evidence that the Gospels, ALL the Gospels, were not written until the 2nd Century. I include both the four Gospels that you reference and the larger body of the discounted Gnostic Gospels. The word "Gospel" was not in common use until this time.

There is no reference to the Gospels as written texts until the 3rd century, even among discussions among the Christian hierarchy. You don't find works like the Sinope Gospels until the 6th century.

If this dating is accurate, then the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but rather formalizations of stories told and retold. After the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, four works were selected and became the orthodox Gospels. The remainder of the Gospels were discounted and those that believed in them, the Gnostics, persecuted. We know, for example, that the Albigensian or Cathar Crusade in the 13th Century was directed against believers of alternative Gospels.

Some links:
The Gospels Link

The Gnostic Gospels Link

The Albigensian Crusade Link
on Apr 27, 2006
There are some things I know I don't like. I recall Jesus speaks rather harshly of others, especially Pharisees and the priests. I find it out of character for this man of peace and good will. He calls them vipers or snakes or something. What might be the point of such name calling and anger?


Jesus knows what's in the hearts of all men. He knew those in authority were leading the people away from God not to God. He knew of the abuse of power and how these priests who were suppose to represent God were doing anything but. Do you remember the anger Christ had at the temple during feasttime when the moneychangers were at the temple? Well they were cheating and charging the people exhorbitant amounts of money and using the proceeds to fill their pockets. Sounds like today huh? It's ok to be angry as long as you're angry at the right things. Anger against sin is ok. I'm afraid today we're not angry over sin like we used to be. We have been very desensitized.

Actually it was John the Baptist who called the Phariblinds vipers (Matt & Luke 3:7). Remember the Pharisees were the most influential of the Jewish sects at that time. They did all the "right things" supposedly but were hypocritical, self righteous and the foremost persecuters of Jesus. We read in scripture of their murderous plot not only against Jesus but also against Lazarus (get rid of the evidence). No Jesus did not break his rules in His anger over them. They represented their father, the evil one.

As for killing? There is a difference between killing and murder.

When we see a hungry person, ought we not feed him? Or a person needing a coat, should we not clothe him?


Absolutely, when we do so, we do for HIM he says. Did you read my first blog article? Link



on Apr 27, 2006
I think most know not to come to your blog and comment without knowing what they believe and why


Well That's good. I want people to know WHY they believe what they do. Many go along with what they've heard along the way without really do the research for themselves.

How do you date the Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels? There is a body of evidence that the Gospels, ALL the Gospels, were not written until the 2nd Century. I include both the four Gospels that you reference and the larger body of the discounted Gnostic Gospels. The word "Gospel" was not in common use until this time.


Well it's been widely accepted that the four gospels were eyewittness accounts and the others were written later nearer the second century. Both Luke and John in their gospels acknowledge these are the accounts of eyewittnesses. Also the reliability and integrity of these four speak for themselves in comparison to the others.

We also have the early church fathers such as Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis writing about 140AD From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD referred the Gospel of Mark as the "memoirs of Peter." Ireneaus writing about 185 AD called "Mark the discipler and interpreter of Peter"

The cannonicity and the author of Matthew were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (c.a. 265-339) quotes Origen (185-254) "Among the four gospels which are the only indisputable ones in the church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew who was once a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism." Ecclesiastical History

The overwhelming evidence supports the fact that the first four gospels were eyewittness accounts while the others were written well after Jesus walked the earth. If you take the time to read them, you'll even see they do not even read the same. I

on Apr 28, 2006
Remember the Pharisees were the most influential of the Jewish sects at that time. They did all the "right things" supposedly but were hypocritical, self righteous and the foremost persecuters of Jesus. We read in scripture of their murderous plot not only against Jesus but also against Lazarus (get rid of the evidence). No Jesus did not break his rules in His anger over them. They represented their father, the evil one.

I'm sure that this is unfair to the Pharisees. After all, Nicodemus was one of their number. And as to the 'persecutors' of Jesus, while it is likely that some would indeed have been hostile to him, others would have been intrigued and wanted to test his wisdom to see if he had something worth listening to. Hence all the scriptural stories of asking Jesus difficult questions, which in fundamentalist christianity gets a horrible anti-semitic spin in which they are only interested in 'tripping him up'.

Actually in Luke 3:7, John the Baptist is castigating "the crowds who came out to be baptized by him", not specifically the Pharisees.

One thing you may not have thought enough about is the horrible centuries-old history of Christians practicising anti-semitism, and just where it came from. In reality the Pharisees must have been like every other religious movement that there's ever been - including your own - a mixture of the sincere and the opportunistic, the zealous and the lukewarm, the kind and the cruel, and the wise and the foolish.

In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which may well be eye-witness accounts, or written fairly soon after, I am only aware of a single uncomplimentary reference to "the Jews" and that's in Matthew's Gospel where it is claimed that the Chief Priests bribed the Roman soldiers to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen his body while they slept and that this "story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day".

On the other hand, the writer(s) of the much-later Gospel of John, who cannot have been a Jew, refers to "the Jews" 71 times (compared to 5 times in Matthew, 6 times in Mark and 5 times in Luke) and most of what he has to say is highly uncomplimentary to say the least! This is probably explained by the desire to mark out a clear difference from the faith that the early christians had broken away from; by the time 'John' was writing, most Christians would have been of gentile origin.

Many Jews today see a direct line of influence from John's anti-semitism to the horrors of the holocaust. I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view.
on Apr 28, 2006
Do you remember the anger Christ had at the temple during feasttime when the moneychangers were at the temple? Well they were cheating and charging the people exhorbitant amounts of money and using the proceeds to fill their pockets. Sounds like today huh? It's ok to be angry as long as you're angry at the right things. Anger against sin is ok. I'm afraid today we're not angry over sin like we used to be. We have been very desensitized.


With palms together,

Hello KFC, The notion of moneychangers seems to have gotten a bad rep in Christianity and this story has been used historically to support anti-semitic thought. There is no evidence I am aware of that temple functionariers were cheating or any other such thing. I do not hold that anger is OK regardless of the cause. I believwe and have seen in action something the Buddha taught 2600 years ago, anger begats anger. My sense is that portrayals of an angry God or an angry Jesus are motivated more by the needs of the authors than of God or Jesus themselves. I am not angry over sin, but rather the forces that create the need for sin. I see sin as a human response to great suffering, albeit a mistaken and/or disguided and misdirected response. We should not allow ourselves to become angry, rather we should use the energy of anger to do more constructive things in the world.

This spin on the story that the Jewish authorities at the time were somehow in cahoots with the Adversary against God is hogwash and cause for a great deal of suffering through history.

Lets look at this in another way.

Jesus, the story goes, is here to redeem man. To do so he must live as a man and die on the cross. Its the redemptive motiff that is at the crux. There problem is in the staging. Just as with God and the Egyptians during Exodus or God and Job. We have God creating a theatre upon which he manipulates and tortures and kills human beings in order to either make a point or look good. For Jesus to die for our sins somebody had to kill him. For God to look good to the Jews coming out of Egypt he had to 'harden the hearts' of the Egyptians, trounce them several times over and over again each time He hardened their hearts, then He kills them all in the Red sea. Frankly I don't believe any of it. I believe God is a universal who has no ill will period. Ill will is what we add to the picture in order to make it interesting or to prove a point.

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God. Doesn't get angry, preaches and practices deep compassion and lovingkindness for friend and foe alike.

In both cases human beings have written the stories, the biographies, if you will. And the culture's values are found in the stories themselves. Peace, non-violence, livingkindness, eradication of self centeredness, on the one hand., a very jeolous God who is wrathful and spiteful, on the other hand. Neither story sets are the truth, as it were. They each tell more about the story-teller than anything else.

I guess where I am right now is in a place where I do not want nor do I need a wrathful God, a God to fear. I want a kind and loving model of compassion and love.


Be well.
on Apr 28, 2006
Actually in Luke 3:7, John the Baptist is castigating "the crowds who came out to be baptized by him", not specifically the Pharisees


ah, but you did not include Matt 3:7 which says: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Yes they were "the crowds" but it was the pharisees he directed his comments to.

I didn't think you were as the others Chak, picking and choosing but I can see clearly by what you wrote you are doing just that. Picking that which makes your point but leaving anything out that doesn't quite jive with it.

BTW I am not anti-semetic by any stretch. I agree that passages from scripture have been taken to promote this, but that's because the people who have done so are ignorant of the WHOLE of scripture and just use what they want to further an agenda. I am not convinced by opinion, heresay or agendas. I am after truth and have been seeking this for quite some time. I would give to anyone who would use scripture to further anti-semitism the following verse from Acts to shut them up:

The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against your holy child Jesus, whom you have anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. For to do whatsoever your hand and your counsel determined before to be done. Acts 4:26-28.

First notice this was a prayer from Peter and John. Notice that the events were predetermined. Also notice who are found guilty. ALL from all walks. We all are guilty because it was our sin that put him there in the first place.

Also do you remember that it was Jesus "who gave up his spirit?" He had said earlier to the disciples that he gave his life freely no one was to take it from him. If you remember, he would disappear all the time when they were ready to lay hands on him but "it was not His time" yet.

In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which may well be eye-witness accounts, or written fairly soon after, I am only aware of a single uncomplimentary reference to "the Jews"


Then here's some HW for you...just the tip of the iceburg. Matt 23:23-36. Notice these words.....hypocrites, blind guides, extortion, white washed sepulchres on the outside, dead man's bones on the inside, unrighteousness, murderers, serpents, vipers.

Or how about Mark 7:1-23? Luke 11:37-54? or how about Matt 26:59-60 which states: "Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death. But found none: yes though many false witnesses came (not credible) yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses.
I spent two years studying the book of John and I was amazed at the Judicial Tyranny that went on at his arrest and trial. They broke many biblical commands as well as Roman laws to get him to the cross. These fine priests were not the goody two shoes you make them out to be. Jesus called them the sons of the devil. They followed their father he said.

I find it interesting that you dish John in his eyewitness testimony when it comes to his take on the "Jews" but use the story of Nicodemus (which is in John 3) for your advantage. Did you not notice that Nick came under cover of darkness to speak to Jesus? Why do you suppose? Not in broad daylight? When he dared speak up in a council meeting later look what happened...John 7.50-52. No.... Nick did not come out fully until after the death of Jesus when he became instrumental in taking down the body. See he was one that didn't follow the others. He listened to the words. That's what I'm doing Chak.

Again, you have to know the truth so you can spot the lies, and I can see that you are not familiar with the truth here.

Again one does not have to be anti-semetic to believe the bible and what it says. The Jews in scripture were a chosen people for a special purpose. Unlike many others out there, I do not think he's done with them yet. They are still here for a reason. Scripture is quite plain that he is going to turn back to them when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in. And I believe that will be soon.

by the time 'John' was writing, most Christians would have been of gentile origin.


yes, I guess I would agree here. Acts was written in the 60's and John in the 90's. When we read of the early church we see Jewish believers in the first 8 chapters of Acts coming in by the thousands.; 3000 in one day and later 5000 but by the time John wrote it had spread quickly to the Gentiles as well.
on Apr 28, 2006
This spin on the story that the Jewish authorities at the time were somehow in cahoots with the Adversary against God is hogwash and cause for a great deal of suffering through history.


well that's what history records. If you don't like it you can re-write it...heck everyone else is. Go for it. You'll fit right in.

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God. Doesn't get angry, preaches and practices deep compassion and lovingkindness for friend and foe alike.


then you just keep following Buddah. but don't say you were not warned. Paul said this: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.

So I guess it depends on who do you wanna believe? First thing I did was investigate Jesus. Is he who he really said He was. Was he God? Was he a nutcase? Was he a liar? That's where I think it all starts. What do you do with Jesus?

Now, Buddha on the other hand, never claims to be God


But Jesus did. Was he not? That's what we all have to investigate for ourselves. What has Buddah done for you? Did he save you? Did he die for you? Did he wipe away your sins? Does he reserve a place for you in eternity?

I guess where I am right now is in a place where I do not want nor do I need a wrathful God, a God to fear. I want a kind and loving model of compassion and love


nobody wants a wrathful God. The fear of God is one of healthy respect not dread. Sort of like a small child fears his father with love and adoration all mixed up with it. It's putting our father whether human or God in his rightful place.

I believe we do have that model in Jesus. He came as a lamb to the slaughter not opening his mouth and he laid down his life for his sheep.

But don't be fooled. He has another side. While the first time he came as a meek little lamb the second time he will return the Lion of Judah. Whether we like it or not. Whether we accept it or not.

Be really well Sodaiho

2 Pages1 2